Petrol Station Sales.

[John Daniels]

If you go to a shop, you have the right to back out on the deal at the till.

So, for example if you went to your supermarket, loaded up the trolley then
found the assistant very rude at the check out, you are quite within your
rights to walk away leaving them to put everything back.

OK this doesn't happen often but the other day a friend of mine was buying
diesel, and when he went to pay found the till assistant offensive to the
extreme. He didn't feel like completing the transaction. Had it been a
shop or pub, he'd have walked out.

He couldn't because he had a tank full of fuel.

Had he decided not to do business, and offered them the opportunity to
recover unpaid fuel from his car - via a syphon or whatever, would he have
been within his rights?

As I say, this is just a "what if" scenario, and I know you guys are busy
people, but a bit of clarification would help.

Cheers JD

[Gaz]

Post by John Daniels
If you go to a shop, you have the right to back out on the deal at the till.
So, for example if you went to your supermarket, loaded up the trolley then
found the assistant very rude at the check out, you are quite within your
rights to walk away leaving them to put everything back.
OK this doesn't happen often but the other day a friend of mine was buying
diesel, and when he went to pay found the till assistant offensive to the
extreme. He didn't feel like completing the transaction. Had it been a
shop or pub, he'd have walked out.
He couldn't because he had a tank full of fuel.
Had he decided not to do business, and offered them the opportunity to
recover unpaid fuel from his car - via a syphon or whatever, would he have
been within his rights?
As I say, this is just a "what if" scenario, and I know you guys are busy
people, but a bit of clarification would help.

His behaviour might be considered unreasonable............

Gaz

Post by John Daniels
Cheers JD

[Mike Harrison]

Post by John Daniels
If you go to a shop, you have the right to back out on the deal at the till.
So, for example if you went to your supermarket, loaded up the trolley then
found the assistant very rude at the check out, you are quite within your
rights to walk away leaving them to put everything back.
OK this doesn't happen often but the other day a friend of mine was buying
diesel, and when he went to pay found the till assistant offensive to the
extreme. He didn't feel like completing the transaction. Had it been a
shop or pub, he'd have walked out.
He couldn't because he had a tank full of fuel.
Had he decided not to do business, and offered them the opportunity to
recover unpaid fuel from his car - via a syphon or whatever, would he have
been within his rights?
As I say, this is just a "what if" scenario, and I know you guys are busy
people, but a bit of clarification would help.
Cheers JD

My guess is that by filling up he has effectively entered into a contract to pay, and would be
liable for any costs of recovering the fuel.
A comparable scenario would be if you damaged goods before paying in a shop.

[Joe Soap]

In response to what Mike Harrison <***@whitewing.co.uk> posted in news:***@4ax.com:

[snip]

Post by Mike Harrison

Post by John Daniels
As I say, this is just a "what if" scenario, and I know you guys are
busy people, but a bit of clarification would help.

My guess is that by filling up he has effectively entered into a
contract to pay, and would be liable for any costs of recovering the
fuel. A comparable scenario would be if you damaged goods before
paying in a shop.

Here is an actual occurrence: last Sat I noticed that the item produced was
not what I had asked for - AFTER the shop had swiped my CC. I pointed out
the error, and told them to abort the sale.

They refused, saying it was too late now, and said I should take it to the
long queue - about 30 to 45 minutes, from previous experience - at the
'returns' desk.

No way, said I, refusing to sign the authorisation, and walked out.

I am now in the process of getting the unauthorised deduction removed from
my CC.

[David J]

Post by Joe Soap
[snip]

Post by Mike Harrison

Post by John Daniels
As I say, this is just a "what if" scenario, and I know you guys are
busy people, but a bit of clarification would help.

My guess is that by filling up he has effectively entered into a
contract to pay, and would be liable for any costs of recovering the
fuel. A comparable scenario would be if you damaged goods before
paying in a shop.

Here's another:

Filling up at a petrol station in Liverpool. When my tank was about
half full there was a sudden power cut and all the pumps stopped
working. After a moment the power came back on, but it had reset the
fuel & cash totals on the pump to zero! I continued to fill the tank
until the pump stopped.

When I went to pay I suggested that I should pay what was stated on
the pump. What else should I pay? And how could anyone prove it?

I was half-joking, but the scouser cashier was incandescant with me
(southerner) and wanted to call the police.

I paid what he demanded, but later wondered where I stood legally.

[Derek ^]

Post by Mike Harrison
My guess is that by filling up he has effectively entered into a contract to pay,

I think he probably has. But not to have to deal with somebody who is
rude or offensive.

I would leave my Name and Address over the counter, and send a note to
the management with a cheque.

Post by Mike Harrison
and would be liable for any costs of recovering the fuel.

They'd have to be reasonable, insignificant in the first instance.

Post by Mike Harrison
A comparable scenario would be if you damaged goods before paying in a shop.

??? In what way???

M&S didn't attempt to charge me when I dropped a big bottle of Orange
Squash and it went all over the floor. I wouldn't pay for any
accidental damage I did in a supermarket before I'd paid.

I excercise a normal standard of care, and in any event walking round
their storeroom picking the items their customer wishes to buy used to
be done by a paid employee of the shop when I were a lad.

Displays of expensive delicate glassware perilously perched in gift
shops I wouldn't accept as my responsibility either, if the shop
displayed a notice to the effect that it was I wouldn't shop there.

DG

[f***@molcho.com]

Mike Harrison <***@whitewing.co.uk> wrote in news:***@4ax.com:

[snip]

Post by Mike Harrison
My guess is that by filling up he has effectively entered into a
contract to pay, and would be liable for any costs of recovering the
fuel. A comparable scenario would be if you damaged goods before
paying in a shop.

So you believe that if you go into a petrol station and fill up, the owner
is *obliged* to sell you that fuel?!

[GK]

Post by Joe Soap
[snip]

Post by Mike Harrison
My guess is that by filling up he has effectively entered into a
contract to pay, and would be liable for any costs of recovering the
fuel. A comparable scenario would be if you damaged goods before
paying in a shop.

So you believe that if you go into a petrol station and fill up, the
owner is *obliged* to sell you that fuel?!

Fuel demands at the pump have to be authorised by the cashier before it is
delivered. If they don't want to sell you the fuel, they simply don't press
the button to authorise the delivery.

I would say that once you have taken delivery of the goods (fuel), you are
then under obligation to pay for it, unless of course, you believe it to be
of a substandard quality. But how could you dispute that on the spot?

IANAL

GK

[Mike Harrison]

Post by Joe Soap
[snip]

Post by Mike Harrison
My guess is that by filling up he has effectively entered into a
contract to pay, and would be liable for any costs of recovering the
fuel. A comparable scenario would be if you damaged goods before
paying in a shop.

So you believe that if you go into a petrol station and fill up, the owner
is *obliged* to sell you that fuel?!

He would surely be obliged to either sell it or remove it if HE decided not to sell it to you.
However this discussion was about a customer taking the fuel and then deciding not to purchase, in
which case it is surely his responsibility to return it, or pay the costs for someone else to do so.

[Reality Surgeon]

Post by Mike Harrison

Post by Joe Soap
[snip]

Post by Mike Harrison
My guess is that by filling up he has effectively entered into a
contract to pay, and would be liable for any costs of recovering the
fuel. A comparable scenario would be if you damaged goods before
paying in a shop.

Agreed, it's called an executory contract. The difficult lies in that once
the
fuel enters the tank and mixes with what's already there, it is
irrecoverable as
property. This is the whole reason why the offence of "making off without
payment"
was created in the Theft Act 1978 (UK). Otherwise, it would be a wholly
civil matter.

It's slightly different with damaged goods in a shop, because there is no
mixture,
and the value, or price, is ascertainable. Items like petrol, sand, and
money, are
"fungibles" because they can be substituted without loss of value. A broken
vase,
OTOH, can be separated because it does not need to be distinguished from its
context.

Post by Mike Harrison

Post by Joe Soap
So you believe that if you go into a petrol station and fill up, the owner
is *obliged* to sell you that fuel?!

No. Under the the law of contract, when you go to the till, you are offering
to
buy the fuel. The vendor is not obliged to accept your offer. However, since
it
is already in your tank, he'd have some difficulty recovering it. See below.

Post by Mike Harrison
He would surely be obliged to either sell it or remove it if HE decided

not to sell it to you.

Post by Mike Harrison
However this discussion was about a customer taking the fuel and then

deciding not to purchase, in

Post by Mike Harrison
which case it is surely his responsibility to return it, or pay the costs

for someone else to do so.

In civil law, as soon as the petrol enters the tank of the possible
customer, it mixes with
whatever is already there and becomes his property, unless it can be shown
that the customer
is dishonest ab initio. If the customer decides not to purchase, the onus is
then upon him to
recompense the supplier. In strict law, there is no way the customer can
return the fuel, or
pay the costs for someone else to do so, because that would be impossible.
There are only two
possibilities I can see: (i) the purchaser of the fuel makes a deal with the
vendor as to price;
(ii) the vendor takes details of the purchaser and sues him for the value of
the fuel.

In any case, there is no breach of the criminal law unless the purchaser can
be shown to have been
dishonest from the start.

RS

[David]

Agreed, it's called an executory contract. The difficult lies in that
once

Post by Reality Surgeon
the
fuel enters the tank and mixes with what's already there, it is
irrecoverable as
property. This is the whole reason why the offence of "making off without
payment"
was created in the Theft Act 1978 (UK). Otherwise, it would be a wholly
civil matter.

unless the contract is of a unilateral nature than any contract is
executory prior to be executed! also, the petrol would not be
irrecoverable as the mixing of both would not create any other than an
existing homogenous substance, only when the mixing of two items would
it then become unrecoverable in law, say; saw dust and glue making
hardboard.

Post by Reality Surgeon
It's slightly different with damaged goods in a shop, because there is no
mixture,> and the value, or price, is ascertainable. Items like petrol, sand, and
money, are
"fungibles" because they can be substituted without loss of value. A broken
vase,
OTOH, can be separated because it does not need to be distinguished from its
context.

As stated prior no liability on behalf of potential purchaser if goods
are damaged, if normal standard behaviour is applied, it is a risk the
shop keep runs

Post by Reality Surgeon

Post by f***@molcho.com
So you believe that if you go into a petrol station and fill up, the

owner

Post by f***@molcho.com
is *obliged* to sell you that fuel?!

No. Under the the law of contract, when you go to the till, you are offering
to
buy the fuel. The vendor is not obliged to accept your offer. However, since
it
is already in your tank, he'd have some difficulty recovering it.

Contract by then, is using your phrase Executed, save for the paying of
the petrol. The invitation to treat is the signage and pumps, the place
the nozzle into the vehicle is the offer and the acceptance is the
authorisation by the cashier. Therefore contract performed by Conduct.
If the driver does not paid at that stage then it is irrelevant.

Post by Reality Surgeon
In civil law, as soon as the petrol enters the tank of the possible
customer, it mixes with
whatever is already there and becomes his prr operty,

Not nescessarly true


If the customer decides not to purchase, the onus is

Post by Reality Surgeon
then upon him to
recompense the supplier. In strict law, there is no way the customer can
return the fuel, or
pay the costs for someone else to do so, because that would be impossible.

Why?

Post by Reality Surgeon
There are only two
possibilities I can see: (i) the purchaser of the fuel makes a deal with the
vendor as to price;

you mean barter? I can just see the customers in Tesco petrol station
queues on a busy morning all individaully making deals

Post by Reality Surgeon
(ii) the vendor takes details of the purchaser and sues him for the value of
the fuel.

Usual in the event of a mistake

[Peter]

Post by David
unless the contract is of a unilateral nature than any contract is
executory prior to be executed! also, the petrol would not be
irrecoverable as the mixing of both would not create any other than an
existing homogenous substance, only when the mixing of two items would
it then become unrecoverable in law, say; saw dust and glue making
hardboard.

In Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern)
Ltd [1952] 2 QB 795 Boots set up a self service shop where customers could
select 'pharmacy only' medicines, take them to a checkout and provided a
supervising pharmacist agreed the operator would ring them up. The Society
charged Boots with selling such medicines not under the supervision of a
pharmacist on the basis that there was a contract once the customer picked
the item off the shelf.

However it was held that the display was merely an invitation to treat and
that the customer offered to purchase the item when presenting it at the
checkout and the pharmacist was authorised to decline the offer to
purchase. The item can then be returned to the shelf intact if the
customer withdraws an offer to purchase or the retailer declines to accept
it. If the customer negates the commercial value of the item (eg opening a
packet of sweets and swallowing an sweet) before presenting it at the
checkout, then presumably the customer effectively offers to purchase them
at this point and cannot withdraw such an offer.

This case affirms the point at which an offer is made in a retail setting.

Just to clarify a point from above, petrol or diesel would cease to be of
merchantable quality once it enters a vehicle's fuel tank, hence recovery
with the intention of resale is not an option. Use in the garage's or
garage owner's vehicle is a practical option.

I would argue that a self service forecourt is merely an invitation to treat
(like the chemist or other shop), with an attendant in charge who is
authorised to forbid a customer filling up, or even to stop delivery at any
time. The customer offers to purchase the petrol or diesel by placing it
in the vehicle tank and the garage accepts the offer either when payment is
received or by declaring acceptance (thus allowing the offence of obtaining
credit by fraud to apply if need be). Once the petrol is in the vehicle
tank, the customer cannot withdraw the offer to purchase the delivered
petrol even if he or she does not like the attitude of the attendant, has
accidentally put diesel in a petrol tank or other such reason. The garage
would indicate acceptable terms of payment accompanying the invitation eg
no cheques or credit.

I would not regard a forecourt with self service petrol pumps as an offer to
the world to supply petrol ie an unilateral offer such as that in Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256 (Carbolic offered 100 pounds to
anyone who used the smoke ball as directed but still caught the 'flu - Mrs
Carlill was awarded the 100 pounds after catching the 'flu).

I have heard of a case of a young female attendant grabbing a can and tube
and siphoning the petrol out of the tank of the car of a customer who did
not any money or cards (not that I like the thought of sucking petrol up a
tube although I have done it a few times).

[David]

Post by Peter
I would not regard a forecourt with self service petrol pumps as an offer to
the world to supply petrol ie an unilateral offer such as that in Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256 (Carbolic offered 100 pounds to
anyone who used the smoke ball as directed but still caught the 'flu - Mrs
Carlill was awarded the 100 pounds after catching the 'flu).

No, who purchased the ball and then caught flu

I love this group! are you suggesting that the purchase of petrol is by
way of a Reward?

[Peter]

Post by David

Post by Peter
I would not regard a forecourt with self service petrol pumps as an offer
to the world to supply petrol ie an unilateral offer such as that in
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256 (Carbolic offered
100 pounds to anyone who used the smoke ball as directed but still caught
the 'flu - Mrs Carlill was awarded the 100 pounds after catching the
'flu).

No, who purchased the ball and then caught flu

Agreed.

Post by David
I love this group! are you suggesting that the purchase of petrol is by
way of a Reward?

No, I am just making the point IMO that a self service forecourt, unlike
Carbolic's offer is not an unilateral offer to the world to supply motor
spirits.

[David]

Post by Peter
No, I am just making the point IMO that a self service forecourt, unlike
Carbolic's offer is not an unilateral offer to the world to supply motor
spirits.

who said it was?

[Peter]

Post by David

Post by Peter
No, I am just making the point IMO that a self service forecourt, unlike
Carbolic's offer is not an unilateral offer to the world to supply motor
spirits.

who said it was?

Someone in the chain of postings from what I remember suggested it was ie
the garage made a unilateral offer to sell motor spirits, and the customer
accepted the offer by filling his car's tank, hence was liable to pay
despite the surly attitude of the attendant. While such a contract
interpretation answers the query made by the OP, this interpretation
contains too many 'fish hooks' to be workable. The normal 'invitation to
treat' scenario is much more workable.

[David]

Post by Peter
Someone in the chain of postings from what I remember suggested it was ie
the garage made a unilateral offer to sell motor spirits, and the customer
accepted the offer by filling his car's tank, hence was liable to pay
despite the surly attitude of the attendant. While such a contract
interpretation answers the query made by the OP, this interpretation
contains too many 'fish hooks' to be workable. The normal 'invitation to
treat' scenario is much more workable.

are the petrol stations the same in NZ as the UK?

[Peter]

Post by David

Post by Peter
Someone in the chain of postings from what I remember suggested it was ie
the garage made a unilateral offer to sell motor spirits, and the
customer accepted the offer by filling his car's tank, hence was liable
to pay
despite the surly attitude of the attendant. While such a contract
interpretation answers the query made by the OP, this interpretation
contains too many 'fish hooks' to be workable. The normal 'invitation to
treat' scenario is much more workable.

are the petrol stations the same in NZ as the UK?

Yes, self service forecourts are the norm - you help yourself then pay at
the desk (cash, credit card, EFT-POS card, fuel card etc, or even charge
accounts for authorised customers) - the pumps are 'open' - no need for the
attendant to release the pump prior to a sale. Sometimes you can swipe a
card on the pump but this is voluntary and such pump based equipment has
not proved reliable.

One can take it that the the law of contract generally the same in UK and
NZ. There will be some differences, especially where associated
legislation is materially different. NZ courts find UK judgements highly
persuasive. For example the 'Carbolic Smoke Ball' holdings have been
accepted by NZ courts, and NZ lending institutions and their legal advisers
need to ponder carefully the suggested processes in 'Royal Bank of Scotland
v Etridge' as it could well be thrown in their faces when trying to resist
injunctions against mortgagee sales of houses where 'undue influence' is
claimed. The fundamental contractural process of a retail sale is
essentially the same in both administrations.

Similarly UK courts sometimes cite NZ cases eg in the Naomi Campbell House
of Lords appeal last year, or the NZ case 'R v Hori' - murder case - no
body - circumstantial evidence only.

[Alex Heney]

Post by Peter

Post by David

Post by Peter
Someone in the chain of postings from what I remember suggested it was ie
the garage made a unilateral offer to sell motor spirits, and the
customer accepted the offer by filling his car's tank, hence was liable
to pay
despite the surly attitude of the attendant. While such a contract
interpretation answers the query made by the OP, this interpretation
contains too many 'fish hooks' to be workable. The normal 'invitation to
treat' scenario is much more workable.

are the petrol stations the same in NZ as the UK?

Yes, self service forecourts are the norm - you help yourself then pay at
the desk (cash, credit card, EFT-POS card, fuel card etc, or even charge
accounts for authorised customers) - the pumps are 'open' - no need for the
attendant to release the pump prior to a sale.

That part is NOT the same in NZ then.

In the UK the pumps are NEVER, in my experience "open". The attendant
always has to press a button (usually in the kiosk) before you can
draw petrol.

Post by Peter
Sometimes you can swipe a
card on the pump but this is voluntary and such pump based equipment has
not proved reliable.

Even with those, the pump often has to be activated, and they do seem
to be being phased out now anyhow.

[Peter]

Post by Alex Heney
In the UK the pumps are NEVER, in my experience "open". The attendant
always has to press a button (usually in the kiosk) before you can
draw petrol.

In which case pressing the button is the service station's acceptance of the
customer's offer to purchase fuel on usual terms (the customer's actions
indicating that he wishes to purchase fuel). This is not really
distinguished from the NZ situation where the customer's attempt to draw
petrol is an offer and the delivery of petrol is acceptance. In the UK
situation, pressing the button is acceptance in principle, the contract
would be effectively terminated by mutual agreement if the customer then
decides not to fill up (oops I forgot my wallet!).

[Dont be fuelish]

Post by Alex Heney
In the UK the pumps are NEVER, in my experience "open". The attendant
always has to press a button (usually in the kiosk) before you can
draw petrol.

The requirement to press the button is there for only two reasons, to
stop sales to those under 16 and to ensure the fuel will be delivered
to a prescribed storage vessel.


--

[Cynic]

On 22 Aug 2005 00:02:25 -0700, "David"

Post by David
unless the contract is of a unilateral nature than any contract is
executory prior to be executed! also, the petrol would not be
irrecoverable as the mixing of both would not create any other than an
existing homogenous substance

I disagree.

Fuel once in the tank is beyond economic recovery. It has mixed with
whatever was already in the tank, which may have been fuel of a
different grade, or may be contaminated, or may have different
additives to the fuel just dispensed. It would be uneconomic to test
whether the mixture in the tank meets the same formula and quality
standards as the fuel in the pump.

[Dave Baker]

Post by Cynic
On 22 Aug 2005 00:02:25 -0700, "David"

Post by David
unless the contract is of a unilateral nature than any contract is
executory prior to be executed! also, the petrol would not be
irrecoverable as the mixing of both would not create any other than an
existing homogenous substance

I disagree.
Fuel once in the tank is beyond economic recovery. It has mixed with
whatever was already in the tank, which may have been fuel of a
different grade, or may be contaminated, or may have different
additives to the fuel just dispensed. It would be uneconomic to test
whether the mixture in the tank meets the same formula and quality
standards as the fuel in the pump.

This is a silly debate and one adequately resolved by general principles of
law. The price on the pump or hoarding is an invitation to treat. There is
nothing to stop a person asking the cashier to accept a lower price and
nothing to stop the cashier accepting such. In the absence of such an
agreement the act of putting fuel into your tank is acceptance of the price
marked and the cashier allowing you to do so is acceptance of your offer to
buy at the marked price.
--
Dave Baker

[David]

Post by Cynic
I disagree.
Fuel once in the tank is beyond economic recovery. It has mixed with
whatever was already in the tank, which may have been fuel of a
different grade, or may be contaminated, or may have different
additives to the fuel just dispensed. It would be uneconomic to test
whether the mixture in the tank meets the same formula and quality
standards as the fuel in the pump.

whether or it is economical is not the issue, the law is clear

[David]

Post by Mike Harrison
A comparable scenario would be if you damaged goods before paying in a shop.

There is no legal compulsion to purchase or compensate for the goods if
damaged prior to contract if not committed intentionally

[Alex Heney]

On 21 Aug 2005 23:23:07 -0700, "David"

Post by David

Post by Mike Harrison
A comparable scenario would be if you damaged goods before paying in a shop.

There is no legal compulsion to purchase or compensate for the goods if
damaged prior to contract if not committed intentionally

Wrong.

If the damage is caused by your negligence, then you are liable,
regardless of intention.

[David]

Post by Alex Heney
Wrong.
If the damage is caused by your negligence, then you are liable,
regardless of intention.

OK, give us a few examples with case references