Petrol at 14.9c a litre in Riwaka

[riffer]

I read with interest the story about the Riwaka Challenge Petrol Station (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3466204a10,00.html) and Police advising motorists who filled their cars up with petrol at their station to come forward and pay extra or face penalties for theft or using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage.

As I understand it, this is a self-service station with prices clearly indicated at the pump. When you go to a self-service station, you are presented with a opportunity for a transaction. Challenge offered the petrol at a certain price (being $0.149 per litre). Customers elected to accept this price, and a retail transaction ensued.

For the company to claim the price was an error, and to make such threats is tantamount to demanding with menaces.

For them to also hand over EFTPOS details to Police raises a number of privacy issues as well.

I shall follow this story with interest...

[bugjuice]

that'd be interesting.
As I understood it, if they've paid for the transaction, it's the end of the story. If it's the seller's fault, then they have to take that on the chin.. I was always told that they have to sell at the advertised price, no matter what it is.

I used to do the New World mags each week, and sh*t flew if there was a price wrong in there.. Couple of bucks off a box of Favorites? no probs.. yummy..

[ManDownUnder]

I read with interest the story about the Riwaka Challenge Petrol Station (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3466204a10,00.html) and Police advising motorists who filled their cars up with petrol at their station to come forward and pay extra or face penalties for theft or using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage.

As I understand it, this is a self-service station with prices clearly indicated at the pump. When you go to a self-service station, you are presented with a opportunity for a transaction. Challenge offered the petrol at a certain price (being $0.149 per litre). Customers elected to accept this price, and a retail transaction ensued.

For the company to claim the price was an error, and to make such threats is tantamount to demanding with menaces.

For them to also hand over EFTPOS details to Police raises a number of privacy issues as well.

I shall follow this story with interest...

LOLOL..

hang about

offer... acceptance... exchange of consideration... contract completed!

I see no problems there (apart from me not being handy enough to take advantage of it - with a 5,000l tank in tow...) :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby:

[Fart]

What a big joke.

The gas company should accept the lost and move on. Bunch of dickwarts !

[Colapop]

Ahahahahahaha!!!! About time one went the other way...

[jrandom]

hmmm.

I bet the sign outside said '149.0' and it was just the eftpos machine that was set wrong.

in that case, it's debatable... it's like a store cashier giving you the wrong change to your advantage. if you knowingly, and I stress *knowingly*, walk away with it, does that make you a thief?

I say yes, it does; no different from picking up someone's dropped $20 note and sticking it in your pocket instead of returning it.

[kerryg]

LOLOL..

hang about

offer... acceptance... exchange of consideration... contract completed!

I see no problems there (apart from me not being handy enough to take advantage of it - with a 5,000l tank in tow...) :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby:


Yeah that is logical but I suspect it's wrong. As an example, a shop displays an item for sale with a certain price on it. It is NOT obliged to sell at that price. That is called (digging back in the far reaches of my wizened brain for this..) an OFFER TO TREAT or something close to that, and the seller can still say " no, sorry, the price should be such-and-such, not the displayed price".

So by that reasoning the price shown on the pump of $0.149 does not oblige the seller to sell at that price. Sounds wacky but I'm pretty sure that's correct

[SuperDave]

As fish said, if the sign still read the correct price and it was only the pump set ups that were wrong then these people in my opinion did steal the petrol. But if the only 'advertised' price was that of 14.9c then screw owning up, the service station should absorb that cost as its their fault.

[The Stranger]

Generally you are correct from a contractural perspective, however there are at least 2 other elements at play now.

First the transaction is complete in this instance and second there are now additional laws which cover the consumer specifically and advertising practices etc.

[ManDownUnder]

Yeah that is logical but I suspect it's wrong. As an example, a shop displays an item for sale with a certain price on it. It is NOT obliged to sell at that price. That is called (digging back in the far reaches of my wizened brain for this..) an OFFER TO TREAT or something close to that, and the seller can still say " no, sorry, the price should be such-and-such, not the displayed price".

So by that reasoning the price shown on the pump of $0.149 does not oblige the seller to sell at that price. Sounds wacky but I'm pretty sure that's correct

Yeah - you're right invitation to treat if memory serves... it means the sticker price is an indicated price only and you can haggle all you want beyond that.

BUT, if someone knowingly set up a system such that the invtation to treat constitutes an offer (as in an autometed system) and someone accepts that offer...

The person that stuffed up isn't the person accepting it... how are they to know the difference between a special offer and a cock up?

Should they be expected to know?

It's an interesting point though - if they DO know it's a wrong price and they accept it, who is at fault? I think it should be the meathead setting the price. That all being said I think the offer needs to be fair and reasonable (there was some test like that).

The old case of a woman selling her hubbies car for $5 because he cheated on her comes to mind (which the court accepted as ok from memory).

Aaaaa Law 101. The good old days... and God only knows how much I got right LMAO!
MDU

[Lou Girardin]

So the fuel company gets shafted because they elected to have a machine do a persons job.
Then to add stupidity to injury, they threaten their customers.
Well done Challenged (mentally that is)

[ManDownUnder]

hmmm.

I bet the sign outside said '149.0' and it was just the eftpos machine that was set wrong.

in that case, it's debatable... it's like a store cashier giving you the wrong change to your advantage. if you knowingly, and I stress *knowingly*, walk away with it, does that make you a thief?

I say yes, it does; no different from picking up someone's dropped $20 note and sticking it in your pocket instead of returning it.


awwwwwwwwwww fuck - now I'm AGREEING with you...

[Bartman10]

It is NOT obliged to sell at that price.

Ahh.. but they DID sell it at that price, and that's the difference.

They accepeted the transaction and presumably issued a recipt. End of transaction and end of story IMHO.

We'll see what the courts say though.

[Death 'N' Taxes]

I can't see how the Police can place criminal charges. But I think there may be an action for the company under the Contractual Mistakes Act.

But the company would have to take a civil case to court to have the original contract varied or be granted compensation.

From memory, I think the success for the company would be based on whether it could be proven that the customers knew about the mistake.

Haven't looked at it in a while - so if anyone can add to this - much appreciated.

[Death 'N' Taxes]

Just had another look. Think that it would apply.

Section as follows
6(1) A Court may in the course of any proceedings or on application made for the purpose grant relief under section 7 of this Act to any party to a contract—
(a) If in entering into that contract—
(i) That party was influenced in his decision to enter into the contract by a mistake that was material to him, and the existence of the mistake was known to the other party or one or more of the other parties to the contract (not being a party or parties having substantially the same interest under the contract as the party seeking relief);

[kerryg]

Ahh.. but they DID sell it at that price, and that's the difference.




True, it's not clear cut. But maybe it could be argued (do ya think?) they did not intend to sell at that price (i.e. that is was a mistake, which undoubtedly it was) and also that the buyers could be reasonably expected to know it was a mistake (which I think can be argued pretty convincingly unless they all came from Mars) and omitted to point out the mistake to the seller. I'm with Fish on this one. It's not much different from knowingly pocketing incorrect change. But it'll be interesting to know the final outcome

[Lou Girardin]

The offer to treat was accepted and the contract completed.
Hence my point about relying on a machine. A pump jockey would have said that the price was a mistake.

[Death 'N' Taxes]

It's pretty certain that the contract was completed. All the elements were satisfied:

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Intention to create legal obligations
4. Consideration

But, the issue is whether the contract was entered into due to a mistake, known by one party, that resulted in a substantially unequal exchange of values. Which arguably did happen - being the payment of 14.9 cents for a litre of petrol - likely to be well below cost for the company.

If that is so, then the contract can be varied by the court. Fact is though, that the cost of going to court for the company will greatly outweigh the loss it made on the petrol. Even with court costs awarded, due to the scaling of fees in the District Court rules, there is now way they would recover all of the costs.

I say those people should just be happy with their good luck and leave it at that. Don't bother owning up.

[Colapop]

True, it's not clear cut. But maybe it could be argued (do ya think?) they did not intend to sell at that price (i.e. that is was a mistake, which undoubtedly it was) and also that the buyers could be reasonably expected to know it was a mistake (which I think can be argued pretty convincingly unless they all came from Mars) and omitted to point out the mistake to the seller. I'm with Fish on this one. It's not much different from knowingly pocketing incorrect change. But it'll be interesting to know the final outcome
After reading the story it appears that the problem that the gas station has is not with the people who went in and filled up at the wrong price initially, it is with the person or people who went in filled up, realised it was wrong, then went and filled up again and told their mates. To intentionally defraud is theft. So the theft charge would apply only to those people that intentionally filled up at the reduced price (after realising the pump price mistake). It would be very difficult to prove that any number of people who filled up after the person/s, who apparently filled up twice (the second time with 100 ltrs), were doing so intentionally.

[riffer]

Exactly Lou.

If, say for example, a new guy at your shop sells an expensively modified Harley (which happens to look almost identical to the non-modified one) for the price of the non-modified one, and you fulfill all the forms, can you then, when you find out about the mistake, demand the customer pay extra (through the media), or the police will do him for it?

And are you allowed to present his EFTPOS details to the Police so that they can track him down if he never comes back?

Two problems as I see it.

1. Demanding money with menaces
2. Infringing the customer's privacy

[jrandom]

expensively modified Harley (which happens to look almost identical to the non-modified one)

you're missing a pretty important point, here.

*no* Harley owner wants an expensively modified bike that looks identical to the stock one...

[ManDownUnder]

Exactly Lou.

If, say for example, a new guy at your shop sells an expensively modified Harley (which happens to look almost identical to the non-modified one) for the price of the non-modified one, and you fulfill all the forms, can you then, when you find out about the mistake, demand the customer pay extra (through the media), or the police will do him for it?

And are you allowed to present his EFTPOS details to the Police so that they can track him down if he never comes back?

Two problems as I see it.

1. Demanding money with menaces
2. Infringing the customer's privacy

I don't know that threatening to test the legality of a situation by putting it through the court system (an instrument of the law) is menacing... although it has obviously been used in that way in the past.

Bit of a conundrum that one...

[Lou Girardin]

To intentionally defraud is theft. .

But is this act fraud?
I don't think so.

[SARGE]

i bet SOMEONE got fired over this...

[Macktheknife]

I think that the station owners will find it very hard indeed to make that one fly. And they would be breaching privacy to release details of transactions without consent. Kind of surprised that the police would get involved in this one actually, they usually stay out of cockups like this because of the bed press.
There was a case a few years back where an ATM paid out $100 notes instead of $20 notes, but they were able to get them back because of the knowledge of amount not being what was requested. This case should be black and white under contracts act, offer consideration and acceptance. Cant wait to see how it goes, it could be argued that it was believed to be a promotion, not unheard of.

[Postie]

about know about you guys, but i don't remeber signing any contract when i go to fill up with gas, i guess the closest i could be to signing a contract is if i used a credit card, but then i have a pin for that, so still no signature. So if i go to the gas station and its 1cent, i am gonna pay 1 cent, but if its $1.60 odd like it was not so long ago, then i'm gonna pay $1.60. Basically the gas station fucked up and if i were them, i would have kept my mouth shut and saved the embarrasment of the company and the fucktard who screwed up. As for the police, they can't charge people for theft or any other charge, if you paid for gas, even if its not the recommended retail price, but you still paid for what you took, then how is that stealing?? and how is it any sort of contract?


i know for a fact that i would have filled up if i was there, can anyone honestly say that they wouldn't?

[jrandom]

about know about you guys, but i don't remeber signing any contract when i go to fill up with gas

contracts dont have to be on paper with signatures. legally, their just an agreement between two parties, like DNT says, constituting an offer and acceptance with consideration ('consideration' being benefit in one direction, payment in the other).

[Ixion]

Equity can give relief for a contract palpably entered into in error. But that would mean taking a civil suit against each purchaser. At any event it's clearly a civil not a criminal matter. IANAL, but I cannot see any criminal case here. For it to be theft or fraud the purchasers would have had somehow to "fiddle" the pumps, or such like.

[bugjuice]

contracts dont have to be on paper with signatures. legally, their just an agreement between two parties, like DNT says, constituting an offer and acceptance with consideration ('consideration' being benefit in one direction, payment in the other).
a contract is something two parties agree on and sign, isn't it? Where as an agreement (as in an agreement to the terms and condition of sales) would be a better term to use for such things.

What about 'sale' items..? Not paying full price there.. so what's to say this fuel wasn't on sale? Ok, so it wasn't a predicted 'sale' persay, but all the same, the product was priced, the product was purchased, the company fucked up. Not the purchasers problem..

[Postie]

contracts dont have to be on paper with signatures. legally, their just an agreement between two parties, like DNT says, constituting an offer and acceptance with consideration ('consideration' being benefit in one direction, payment in the other).

its still not a contract, its not even a verbal agreement. An eftpos machine can not be reconised in a court as a party and so can not enter into a contract.

[Coyote]

Government own the police, and the government favour big buisness over the public. The police will have the right to access eftpos records and demand people to pay up whether it's fair or not

[Postie]

Government own the police, and the government favour big buisness over the public. The police will have the right to access eftpos records and demand people to pay up whether it's fair or not

like the police, the government are not above the law and so have no rights to breach the privacy act in obtaining bank records or details. no law was broken so they have no reason for warrant.

[James Deuce]

For them to also hand over EFTPOS details to Police raises a number of privacy issues as well.


Nah we don't actually have any privacy from anyone financially. If a Govt. agency demands electronic transaction details they can get them a number of ways, all legally. This particular piece of legislation was introduced when Jim Bolger was PM, and like all things that disadvantage NZers unfairly, there was barely a ripple of interest.

The legislation presented here: http://www.ird.govt.nz/technical-tax/standard-practice/returns-debt/sps-rdc-3.1-paymentofdebtbycompulsorydeductionsfrombankaccount s.html

gives the government access to your accounts any old how. There was a bit of a murmur when it was realised that it opened up inter departmental information sharing that was previously help in confidence by each department, but like all "good" Kiwis, the attitude was; "If you're not doing anything wrong, you've nothing to worry about."

Of course people forget that the Govt. is run by humans who screw up all the time like the rest of us. You have no protection from a Govt department who screws up if no legal action can be brought to bear. Which is usually the case when they screw you up without you knowing until you access the relevant information.

So, no, there's no privacy issue there at all. You don't have any.

[Postie]

http://www.ird.govt.nz/technical-tax/standard-practice/returns-debt/sps-rdc-3.1-paymentofdebtbycompulsorydeductionsfrombankaccount s.html



thats good to know, but it seems to be more about if you had a tax debt and the govt suspected that you had or will be obtaining funds from overseas to pay the tax debt, i doubt that the govt. will have much legal right to check out someones personal accounts for no reason.

[jrandom]

its still not a contract, its not even a verbal agreement. An eftpos machine can not be reconised in a court as a party and so can not enter into a contract.

if I nick items from the 'honesty' snack box at work, is it stealing?

"but, orificer, I never entered into no contract!"

think.

[Postie]

if I nick items from the 'honesty' snack box at work, is it stealing?

"but, orificer, I never entered into no contract!"

think.

i don't need to think about that, of course its steeling if you TAKE something and you haven't paid for it, but these people purchased the petrol, its completly different.

[James Deuce]

thats good to know, but it seems to be more about if you had a tax debt and the govt suspected that you had or will be obtaining funds from overseas to pay the tax debt, i doubt that the govt. will have much legal right to check out someones personal accounts for no reason.

That is merely the tip of the iceberg. Prior to this legislation, Ministry for Social Policy had no access to your financial details. All Govt. Depts now share information, inc. IRD.

[WINJA]

ON THE NEWS THEY SAID HE LOST ABOUT $2000 , AN AVERAGE BURG WOULD BE WORTH MORE THAN THAT SO HOPEFULLY THE PIGS WILL PRIORITISE IT AT THE END OF THE 5 YEAR WIATING LIST , FUCK THAT GASSY OWNER HE WONT MAKE THAT FUCK UP AGAIN , AS FOR GIVING AWAY EFTPOS DETAILS I THINK THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL IF ANYTHING

[sAsLEX]

if I nick items from the 'honesty' snack box at work, is it stealing?

"but, orificer, I never entered into no contract!"

think.

its not an honesty box, same as saying I nick a car from a lot without paying for it!

just the method of payment is through the box rather than a human, same as the eftpos fuel thingys

-Some petrol stations dont advertise the price of 98 96 super or whatever the fuck they call it these days on the signs, so your only indication is at the pump! if its cheaper than it should be there, and you buy it is that theft?!

[Colapop]

But is this act fraud?
I don't think so.
Yes it is. If a person is capable of driving a car then they have to be able to read. The argument that the pump price was inaccurate may be correct but that would apply if the person unintentionally filled up. The question (as in most cases) is intent. The intent to defraud the petrol station of goods ie. petrol by paying a lesser price than is normal is theft. The fact that they went back is proof of intent. Once is a mistake, twice is premeditated - requiring thought, thus intent (to defraud).
The reality is, I don't think they'll (The station owners) will push the issue too much. They probably made more sales from the publicity!!

[WINJA]

IVE SMASHED UP A VENDING MACHINE CAUSE IT RIPPED ME OFF $1 , I PULLED THE PLUG FROM THE WALL AND USED MY LEATHERMAN TO CUT THE TERMINALS OFF THE PLUG , THEN I KICKED IN THE PLASTIC FASCHIA , JUST THROWING THIS IN HERE CAUSE I HAD A CONTRACT WITH A MACHINE THAT SAID "COKE $1 A CAN" . IF I CALLED THE COPS THEY WOULD NOT HAVE GOT MY MONEY BACK FROM COKE SO I DID IT MY WAY , BTW THEY HAVE A 3 PIN PLUG SO YOU CAN UNPLUG THE MACHINE AND PLUG IN YOUR ANGLE GRINDER AND HACK AWAY

[Postie]

If a person is capable of driving a car then they have to be able to read.
are you saying that no one with a NZ driving license is dyslexic?

[Dadpole]

BTW THEY HAVE A 3 PIN PLUG SO YOU CAN UNPLUG THE MACHINE AND PLUG IN YOUR ANGLE GRINDER AND HACK AWAY

I like the way your mind works. :niceone:

[Karma]

I think you're all missing the one major point here...


Whether it was a legal contract or not, and whether the motorists should pay full price or not... that garage owner is going to lose more than $2000 dollars business from people that are objecting against him getting the police involved against the drivers, thereby proving that he should have just shut up about the whole thing. Could have even turned it into positive PR and a bit of a laugh, rather than what it's now become. He's become a figurehead greedy petrol retailer.

[Lou Girardin]

Yes it is. If a person is capable of driving a car then they have to be able to read. The argument that the pump price was inaccurate may be correct but that would apply if the person unintentionally filled up. The question (as in most cases) is intent. The intent to defraud the petrol station of goods ie. petrol by paying a lesser price than is normal is theft. The fact that they went back is proof of intent. Once is a mistake, twice is premeditated - requiring thought, thus intent (to defraud).
The reality is, I don't think they'll (The station owners) will push the issue too much. They probably made more sales from the publicity!!

You are completely missing the point.
The fuel was offered at a price. There were no conditions as to how much you could buy. The pump didn't tell them it was a mistake. They are not required to second-guess the proprietors intentions.
People bought it, they went back and bought more.
It is NOT illegal to buy fuel at any price.

PS. Does anyone know if this is the same gas station that charged a 15% public holiday surcharge this year?

[Postie]

listening to Talk radio this morning, they had some CEO of consumer rights or some shit.
I'll admit that i was wrong in my previous posts.
Anyway he said that it is theft if the people took the fuel with the knowledge that the mistake had been made. Also because people were going back to fill up there cans with fuel was effectively theft. But if someone filled up and paid and didn't realise that they got a bargain, then they were not acting illegally as it was a legitimate mistake. And apparently the police have some card numbers and may be looking at criminal theft charges. I still don't agree with it, but that’s the law according to the CEO of consumers act or what ever he was.

[ManDownUnder]

I asked about (a few lawyer types) and apparently if you KNOWINGLY enter into an unfair/lopsided/advantageous contract where the advantage is conferred through unfair means (mistake, duress etc) there are remedies available to to party that lost money - where ordinarily they would not have.

The fun part is going to be proving which people entered into the contract knowingly vs those who did it unknowingly...

... and the moral question then comes up - if you DID do it unknowingly, and found out afterwards do you have to pay the extra?

MDU

[Indiana_Jones]

"BANK ERROR IN YOUR FAVOUR. COLLECT $200"


<img src="http://users.bestweb.net/~bgeiger/images/monopoly_guy.jpg" align="centre" vspace="10" hspace="10">

-Indy

[Postie]

"BANK ERROR IN YOUR FAVOUR. COLLECT $200"


<img src="http://users.bestweb.net/~bgeiger/images/monopoly_guy.jpg" align="centre" vspace="10" hspace="10">

-Indy


and yet second prize in a beauty contest is only $10....

[Colapop]

It's all about intent. And these guys/gals (whoever) went in there a few times to fill up were acting with intent.

[Postie]

It's all about intent. And these guys/gals (whoever) went in there a few times to fill up were acting with intent.

i knew i would regret posting that shit.... how long are you gonna use that as your sig???

[Lou Girardin]

It's all about intent. And these guys/gals (whoever) went in there a few times to fill up were acting with intent.

Intent to do what?

Buy gas?

[ktulu]

listening to Talk radio this morning, they had some CEO of consumer rights or some shit.
I'll admit that i was wrong in my previous posts.
Anyway he said that it is theft if the people took the fuel with the knowledge that the mistake had been made. Also because people were going back to fill up there cans with fuel was effectively theft. But if someone filled up and paid and didn't realise that they got a bargain, then they were not acting illegally as it was a legitimate mistake. And apparently the police have some card numbers and may be looking at criminal theft charges. I still don't agree with it, but that’s the law according to the CEO of consumers act or what ever he was.


This is the part that I'd do.

"Oh I didn't check my reciept or look at the price on the pump I just filled up and went about my business" - thats a fair comment to make, thats what I normally do at the servo, don't check my bank accounts all that much.

They couldn't prove you knew.

You wind some and you lose some. In this case you won.

[WINJA]

IF I OWNED THE GASSY ACROSS THE ROAD I WOULD HAVE RUN A HOSE AND FILLED UP MY UNDERGROUND TANKS AND EMPTIED HIS AND CALL IT A BULK BUY DISCOUNT

[bugjuice]

IF I OWNED THE GASSY ACROSS THE ROAD I WOULD HAVE RUN A HOSE AND FILLED UP MY UNDERGROUND TANKS AND EMPTIED HIS AND CALL IT A BULK BUY DISCOUNT
fuk yeah.. Can't help if it's on sale. I'd buy it in good faith that it's .149¢ pl..

[kerryg]

Contractual Mistakes Act 1977:

Clause 6. Relief may be granted where mistake by one party is known to opposing party..
blah blah blah..here's a bit that seems applicable;
(where) the mistake resulted in a substantially unequal exchange of values..or in the conferment of a benefit..which was..substantially disproportionate to the consideration therefore

So if you knew the price was a mistake the gas station owner can come after you if he can be bothered

[Lou Girardin]

Contractual Mistakes Act 1977:

Clause 6. Relief may be granted where mistake by one party is known to opposing party..
blah blah blah..here's a bit that seems applicable;
(where) the mistake resulted in a substantially unequal exchange of values..or in the conferment of a benefit..which was..substantially disproportionate to the consideration therefore

So if you knew the price was a mistake the gas station owner can come after you if he can be bothered

Whish makes it a civil matter. Why are the Plods getting involved?
Business slow in Nelson?
All the burglars caught?

[Toast]

Yes it is. If a person is capable of driving a car then they have to be able to read. The argument that the pump price was inaccurate may be correct but that would apply if the person unintentionally filled up. The question (as in most cases) is intent. The intent to defraud the petrol station of goods ie. petrol by paying a lesser price than is normal is theft. The fact that they went back is proof of intent. Once is a mistake, twice is premeditated - requiring thought, thus intent (to defraud).
The reality is, I don't think they'll (The station owners) will push the issue too much. They probably made more sales from the publicity!!

In order to commit fraud, don't you have to make representations in some form or another for starters?

To my knowledge, people who realised it was a mistake and took advantage of it are almost certainly gonna get caught by the Contractual Mistakes Act if the Gassy Owner uses that (and apparently also criminally liable according to Postie/ZB which I didn't know)...but as far as fraud is concerned, I don't think the basic ingredients are there (can't spell them out as they're at the back of my mind somewhere but won't come out)

[pyrocam]

it was me filling up the barrells. I got about 400 Litres and paid $60.
but I bought a mars bar

[NordieBoy]

So they would have the option of returning the gas - yes?
It does sound more like a civil/contractual dispute rather than criminal.

[Virago]

The reality is that fuel stations are working on really tight margins now, particularly the smaller outlets and the independants. Many service stations are now ripping out their pumps, there simply isn't enough margin to cover the labour and expenses. Many keep going, simply to support their local communities, in the knowledge that the residents would have to drive a long way to get their fuel, if their local pumps were to close.

When a mistake like this happens, all the dickheads jump out, yelling "Ha ha, the greedy petrol retailer got what was coming to him!" Bullshit!!!!!!!!

Those wankers that knowingly took advantage of the mistake, have stolen from the retailer. They are scum-bags who will get no sympathy from me.

[Pixie]

i don't need to think about that, of course its steeling if you TAKE something and you haven't paid for it, but these people purchased the petrol, its completly different.
It could be argued that the people who bought the petrol were too fucking stupid to realise the price was erroneous,because they were also too F.S. to realise that their cards would allow them to be traced.
This is the only arguement that would let them get away with taking advantage of an honest mistake on the part of the retailer.
The retailer is an independent,so the oil company doesn't want to know.
This atitude, that defends the opportunists' taking advantage of a small business,is what makes NZ a paradise for thieves disposing of things that "fell off the back of a truck".
Remember this next time you get burgled

[NordieBoy]

In the Nelson Mail today...

"Senior Sergeant Grant Andrews of Motueka police said last week it was possible that the action could be taken for using a document. Police had been busy with other matters since the amnesty ended but would make further inquiries later this week, he said this morning."

What would the "document" be in this case?

Not worried or anything as I was nowhere near Riwaka at the time :whistle:

[Lou Girardin]

In the Nelson Mail today...

"Senior Sergeant Grant Andrews of Motueka police said last week it was possible that the action could be taken for using a document. Police had been busy with other matters since the amnesty ended but would make further inquiries later this week, he said this morning."

What would the "document" be in this case?

Not worried or anything as I was nowhere near Riwaka at the time :whistle:

This is known in the trade as a "back pedal".
He'll now be praying that someone gets murdered and they'll have no staff to deal with fuelgate.

[kro]

personally they don't have a leg to stand on. bonus to the people who scored cheap go-juice.

[Lou Girardin]

I would have some sympathy for the owner. But for the heavy handed approach in the media and empty threats of Police involvement.
If he had simple stated the situation and asked for the people to contact him there would have been a far better result.
Instead he has come across as a whinging 'poor me' type.

[ManDownUnder]

I would have some sympathy for the owner. But for the heavy handed approach in the media and empty threats of Police involvement.
If he had simple stated the situation and asked for the people to contact him there would have been a far better result.
Instead he has come across as a whinging 'poor me' type.

Agreed. I still think the general public that knowingly fleeced the guy have some responsibility/debt, but calling for people to comae back and pay up would have been the right thing to do.

The legal fees etc chasing this lot would mount up only adding to the risk/loss wouldn't they?
MDU

[M1CRO]

...It does sound more like a civil/contractual dispute rather than criminal.

The guts of this is based on "intent" which would be extremely difficult to prove (except maybe the person that came back and got more - thats a no brainer!).

If the person took advantage of the mistake, then that is Theft (ie. Intent to deprive the owner permanently). This is no different than say, money "magically" appearing in your bank account. You withdrawl all of it and refuse to give it back - THEFT!

However, IF the person HONESTLY thought that the petrol was cheap (lets pretend that they said that they thought there was a major promotion - and yes it may be a bit lame, but the THOUGHT was HONEST), then, in my view, it is no longer criminal but would rather be a civil dispute and the police should not be involved (other than to determine whether a crime has been committed).

So, all in all, that is where the difficulty comes in, in determining whether it is criminal/civil.

[gav]

So was the fuel purchased outside normal hours? You swipe your card first or do you fill up first? So you fill up and the receipt says $5, what can you do?

[Ixion]

Or, even more possible. You swipe, punch in $20 on the pump. Pump pumps away, then stops "uh, odd with today's prices I didn't think $20 would fiill it. Oh well, be bit less than the $20 then". EFTPOS says $1.80. "Uh, WTF. Well, wot can y do". What could they do. Bit rough methinks throwing accusations of fraud about left right and centre.

[KLOWN]

I would have some sympathy for the owner. But for the heavy handed approach in the media and empty threats of Police involvement.
If he had simple stated the situation and asked for the people to contact him there would have been a far better result.
Instead he has come across as a whinging 'poor me' type.

Fully agree with this comment but, if you came back and filled up canisters etc then u knew it was wrong and it's real harsh for an independant operator to swallow this loss. If he closed down is there another petrol station around? then people will cry about not having a petrol station in thier town. Also i think the petrol staion owner could make a compromise, like only charging people $1 a litre instead of asking for all the money back, I wouldv'e been sweet with that.