Petrol at 14.9c a litre in Riwaka

[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.