petrol survey

ROTFLMAO. Yeah absolutely I am, I have this little playpen where I get
to jump on the toes of people who don't have a clue, it's called
ausmoto.- it keeps me in practise.

Define "incorrect price " - is it
a) a price higher than the guy down the road
b) a price you don't like
c) a price different to what they charged yesterday.
d) other (please be specific)

You *DO* understand there is no central price fixing department -
there is no "correct price" according to any centralised body within
Australia (govt. or not) don't you ?

Define "rightful claim" is that that compared to the non existent
"correct price" ?

No, not all. It's only deception if they promise you one thing and
then deliver something different. So when the price is on the pump and
they charge you that price how have you been deceived ?

Obliged under what statute, or under what common law precedent ?
Please be specific.

What ? Apologise for charging you the price that's on the pump ? Why
would they.

I strongly urge you to re-read the facts in this case - I'm pretty
confident you've misread some part of it, there's no way a rational
person could be taking this position unless they've misunderstood
something. Unlike George W you've generally been rational on here,
hence I suspect you've missed a bit somewhere in there.

JL

 

Oh dear well I suspect the University of Sydney law school might have
an issue with your characterisation of my level of understanding(1),
given my grades to date but be that as it may, Atec is flat wrong and
so are you.

The example given by Atec of mistake in contracting has precedent, but
ONLY if a) there has been false or misleading conduct (not the case
here on the facts) which would bring the TPA into play, or b) mistake
under common law in which there was knowledge of reliance (to give you
the short version), let me know if you want the long version. In
extreme situations you could turn to the law of equity and look to
"unjust enrichment" to have the contract overturned. Not done lightly
and I'd give you zero chance on these facts.

There is NO provision in consumer protection law to protect consumers
from themselves unless they are under an impediment (ie refer Amadio
etc). If they contract badly while being in full possession of the
facts about the goods they are purchasing then that's their look out.

In this case you have some in full possession of their faculties (as
far as we know contracting to purchase a domestic commodity (hence
specialised knowledge not required) at an advertised price. One which
may be higher than the vendor intended but nevertheless they did not
mislead anyone on the facts available (and I'm sure Moike would have
said if the display board differed to the pump price)

It's a valid contract.you have no proof of mistake other than hearsay
of half a conversation but ignoring your inability to prove it, that
mistake doesn't invalidate the contract as you have obtained what you
asked for (the appropriate octane fuel) at the advertised price.

A partial truth - or more accurately a misunderstanding of the actual
case law. Where there is mistake and one party relied on the
information provided then you can have grounds to overturn it, but it
needs to be mistake as to quality or specification.

And here is where you keep falling over - there is no "wrong price"
the "correct" price is merely the price the servo INTENDED to charge.
You are not entitled to the lower price if they drop the advertised
price after you fill up either.

Who's the bush lawyer again ? As per my previous requests - quote the
statute or case law that supports your argument.


JL
(1) Here's the subjects I've done in the last 12 months on this topic:
https://ssa.usyd.edu.au/ssa/handboo...ex=153990&session=1&academic_year=2008&back=1
https://ssa.usyd.edu.au/ssa/handboo...ex=152545&session=2&academic_year=2008&back=1
https://ssa.usyd.edu.au/ssa/handboo...x=152927&session=61&academic_year=2008&back=1

(plus some other stuff of less relevance)

 

Go Damien, be specific about the consumer protection laws in question.
Are you referring to "code of practise" the supermarkets put in place
(that's not law) or are you referring to the TPA ? Or are you
referring to case law on contracts in retail premises such as the
Boots Chemist case.

The facts in a petrol retail case are different to a supermarket. They
are not identical and different rules (subtly) apply.

Because you can't take things in isolation, both consumer protection
law and contract law are relevant when you are making a retail
contract.- which is what you are doing when you buy something.

JL

 

Dream on sonny Jim. dream on.

I seem to recall you saying you lived in Goulburn - go down to the
academy and get one of the lecturers to explain what the standard
process is for dealing with someone refusing to pay the amount they've
clocked up on the pump. I think it will go along the lines of
"encourage them to reach an agreement but if the customer attempts to
leave without paying warn them they will be charged with an offence if
they do so, if they persist, arrest them"

Just so you don't go getting yourself arrested one day, please note
that the way to deal with an instance like this where you think you
have a case is that you PAY IN FULL and then take them to court to
recover damages. If you attempt to leave the premises without full
payment and agreement with the retailer that that is OK you have
committed an offence (see below).

That's true, you can dispute until you're blue in the face, as long as
it doesn't become assault or a public nuisance.

But the second you take an action that indicates you *INTEND* (note
you don't have to do it) to leave without paying *the full amount* you
are in breach (you don't have to believe me on this one go have a
look at the signs at most servos specifying exactly which statute it
is you will be in breach of I've seen them at most every major servo
in Sydney).

I'm afraid when the only legal argument you can offer is your personal
opinion that I'm an idiot you're not very convincing.

JL
(I am however starting to think I need to retract my earlier
presumptions about your rationality)

 

Yes they do, but there has been nothing to suggest that there was any
difference between the price on the sign and the price on the pump

Damien's claim is that because the servo owner *intended* to display a
different price in both places (but didn't do so) means that is the
price you should pay regardless of what was advertised on the pump.

He then tries unsuccessfully to draw a parallel with ACTUAL advertised
prices in a supermarket. A better analogy would be if the supermarket
intended to reduce the price of a good, didn't advertise the price
reduction and forgot to reduce the price on the shelf. Just because
you know the manager intended to discount that item doesn't mean you
could demand that price at the checkout.

The reductio ad absurdum would be to flip this over - would Damien
demand to pay the higher price if the cash register jockey
accidentally put too low a price on the pump and sign ? Not bloody
likely I suspect !

JL

 

<thinks back to various drunken nights> Aww I dunno about that !

JL
I've often been a dickhead, but I don't think that affects my ability to
understand some fairly basic legal principles

 

Heh. "Bush Lawyers". And the prize for the most outrageous instance
of kettle denigration by a pot goes to................

Hang on, the fact that a handful of poor stupid bastards were prepared
to pay the clearly advertised price should certainly show that the price
"aspect" was not so significantly flawed as to outweigh basic commercial
practices.

No they didn't.

The customer became aware that the *intended* price was lower at the
same time s the operator, who undertook to alter it asap. What he was
unable to do was apply the price correction retrospectively. How would
you feel if you bought petrol at $1.10 and the operator said "sorry,
that was supposed to go up to $1.50 an hour ago. Would you please pay
the difference."
Would you?
Explain how this would be different.

Moike

 

My other half concurs.
Did I mention that I'm sleeping with a commercial barrister?
(Here was I thinking I was finlly going to get a decent macchiato!)

Moike

 

Is it at about this point that I should remind you that 36 hours ago you
are the one who posted, that the specific matter at hand had, and I
quote, "Nothing to do with contract law". Gotcha. Thanks for coming.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

If nothing else, there is at least one thing you have managed to
convince the readers of this thread. Consistency.

http://tinyurl.com/3g8qwr

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Yes, this was (only) point that I disagreed with when you made it. My
thoughts were along the lines: 'Damien rational!? JL's a bloody
idiot!'.



Mr H (stooping to verbal abuse in attempts to win arguments is about
as irrational as it gets, IMHO)

 

<chuckle> Guilty as charged yer honner.

JL

 

Moike wrote:

What's a commercial barrister?

I thought they all were, as in taxi for hire.

Mine does do a nice line in espresso.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

bloody hell, even that's gone through the roof! Used to be $2 last time
I checked.

 

I'd consider wasting my time with a response, but I honestly do think
you'd be too stupid to understand it. You certainly have been thus far.

 

All that proves is that the law is stupid, and so are its practitioners.

But tell me something I didn't know.

 

So you've obviously spent enough time trawling through every word I've
said to pull one "quote" completely out of context, but you haven't
bothered to actually understand the point being argued? Well, I suppose
I shouldn't be surprised, and yet I am. Go figure.

Sorry Nev, you'll have to do better than that.

 

All that proves is that I am as right about you now as I was then.

Once again, sorry Nev, but you'll have to do better than that.

 

If that is the case, then the law is as full of shit as my arse before a
big dump after a bad curry.

 

That sounds about as close to an admission of error as we're ever going
to hear from you.

Moike