Petrol at 14.9c a litre in Riwaka

[riffer]

I read with interest the story about the Riwaka Challenge Petrol Station 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 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...)

[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...)

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:Me]

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);