Don't you mean all the guys on KB say so so it must be true.Originally Posted by davereid
troglodytam extraordinaire
Don't you mean all the guys on KB say so so it must be true.
SH1 rider
Now we know you are lying. If you could get all the guys on KB to agree on anything you should be president of the universe. No chance of also getting agreement from the girls.
troglodytam extraordinaire
Now we know you are lying. If you could get all the guys on KB to agree on anything you should be president of the universe. No chance of also getting agreement from the girls.
too true.
Hardcore Biker
The other beautiful weekend the local servo was extremely busy. I managed to get a honeymooning couple a full tank for $30
The pump I drove up next to wasn't working, so I used the hose from around the back of the pump from the honeymooning couples lane. I thought if a shell servo doesn't somehow have the ability to save previous pumps then it won't let me pump at all, but it started pumping so I put in $30 and stood in the enormous queue.
When the couple got to the cashier he charged them $30 even though they insisted they got a full tank. And I stood quietly in my place in the line holding my lip. When I got to the front of the line the look of realisation hit him hard!
And I thought to myself... hmmm maybe you should have 2 FUCKING TILLS so you don't hold everyone up on busy days standing in line behind 20 people. At least the couple left with a grin on their faces.
Come warm yourself by the fire
Why dont they just have remote road spikes for those who drive off?
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
Trying to be a good dog
Yeah something should be relatively easy and low cost, not that hard to figure. An automatic bollard that rises and falls on payment etc but the problem would require standardisation across all servos, otherwise customers may prefer non bollarded forecourts due to ease
A compulsory measure would level the playing field, or a measure with no encumbrance on shop sales or customer satisfaction
Who can put their thinking cap on? An electronic engine disable would only get honest drive offs and those less premeditated thieves who dont figure out how to fool it....
ArseBiscuit
Maybe to prove theft you need to find the item.......
So mr copper, you say I nicked 15 liters of petrol? There's 17l in my tank, can you point out the stolen ones?
troglodytam extraordinaire
Most walk up to the pump with a gas can and just walk away after filling up.
Rider in training
I don't know the answer; but it may be regarded as a civil matter, rather than a criminal matter. The police don't get involved in civil recovery.
God's Evil Twin
I'm not sure how it would? it's still theft...
Nup, given the lack of cop response & my experience over the years I'm still putting this down to cops taking shit to avoid doing their job. Also if it were simply a civil matter a cop would have just said so by now but instead the cop shops been silent, Standard "protect your own" gang procedure.
Science Is But An Organized System Of Ignorance"Pornography: The thing with billions of views that nobody watches" - WhiteManBehindADesk
Don't forget to bring a towel
Stealing fuel from a fuel retailer is not a civil matter. It's a criminal offence.
Hardcore Biker
Is it though, isn't it one of those funny ones like a restaurant where the 'purchaser' by his/her actions enters into a contract to pay but when he doesn't it is a cost recover matter i.e. civil rather than if he she just walked in and stole something?
Don't forget to bring a towel
If you walk into a restaurant and have a feed, then leave without paying it's the same thing as filling your car up with fuel and driving off. Theft.
If you arrange with the restaurant manager or petrol station manager to pay at a later date because you ran out of cash then it's not theft as you haven't deliberately attempted to "do a runner". It then becomes a civil matter.
In other words, it's theft (a criminal offence) if you do a runner but it becomes a civil matter if you make alternative arrangements at the time with the other party to pay later. So if your EFTPOS or credit card gets declined or you open your wallet and don't have enough cash then it's not theft because you've attempted to pay, but if you then do a runner after the card is declined without making alternative arrangements with the other party that they agree to, it becomes theft.
Once at a petrol station I saw a sign saying that if you have added fuel to your vehicle but can't afford to pay for it you must leave the vehicle at the servo and give the staff the key to the vehicle, and the vehicle will be returned once the fuel has been paid for in full.
Rider in training
I think you might be onto something here.
Stealing is when you take something without the other parties consent. Consider shoplifting. A person goes into a store, and takes something without the stores knowledge (unless they get caught).
In this case, the service station has consented to supply the fuel. They want you to put petrol in your vehicle. They knew you were getting the fuel. They can see you doing it via their computer and their video cameras. There is no effort made to stop the supply of that petrol.
HOWEVER, when you drive off you have now clearly created a dispute over the PAYMENT. Which would make it a civil matter. And even if the person did it with intent, I think it would be fraud, not theft. This is the definition of fraud:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM330275.html
If is like using a cheque to pay for the petrol (if you could still do that), and then the cheque bounces. The same implied consent exists for the supply of the petrol - but a civil dispute has now been created over the default in payment.240 Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception
(1) Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,—
(a) obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or
(b) in incurring any debt or liability, obtains credit; or
(c) induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or
(d) causes loss to any other person.
(2) In this section, deception means—
(a) a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and—
(i) knows that it is false in a material particular; or
(ii) is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or
(b) an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive any person, in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose it; or
(c) a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person.
Al pretty tenuous in my eyes though. Personally if it was me, and I was the service station owner, I would ring the Police but I think you would have to lay a claim of fraud - not theft, and that may solve the problem.
Rider in training
I think you might be onto something here.
Stealing is when you take something without the other parties consent. Consider shoplifting. A person goes into a store, and takes something without the stores knowledge (unless they get caught).
In this case, the service station has consented to supply the fuel. They want you to put petrol in your vehicle. They knew you were getting the fuel. They can see you doing it via their computer and their video cameras. There is no effort made to stop the supply of that petrol.
HOWEVER, when you drive off you have now clearly created a dispute over the PAYMENT. Which would make it a civil matter. And even if the person did it with intent, I think it would be fraud, not theft. This is the definition of fraud:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM330275.html
If is like using a cheque to pay for the petrol (if you could still do that), and then the cheque bounces. The same implied consent exists for the supply of the petrol - but a civil dispute has now been created over the default in payment.240 Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception
(1) Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,—
(a) obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or
(b) in incurring any debt or liability, obtains credit; or
(c) induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or
(d) causes loss to any other person.
(2) In this section, deception means—
(a) a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and—
(i) knows that it is false in a material particular; or
(ii) is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or
(b) an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive any person, in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose it; or
(c) a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person.
Al pretty tenuous in my eyes though. Personally if it was me, and I was the service station owner, I would ring the Police but I think you would have to lay a claim of fraud - not theft, and that may solve the problem.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks