Kinda legal question......... [Archive]

Landseka

23rd November 2006, 09:58 PM

Is there anyone here that has had any legal background? I don't like asking for freebies but just checking what to me is a clearcut ripoff.

Supposing one were to order a course of uncommon, hard to get drugs on prescription from a chemist, hypothetically of course.<o></o>
<o></o>
The drugs arrive & and on collection one was charged 29 odd dollars for the 2 week supply.<o></o>
<o></o>
Just prior to the supply running out, one re-ordered another 2 week supply. <o></o>
<o></o>
Collect same & charged (hypothetically) 29 odd dollars again.<o></o>
<o></o>
Re-order just before this supply runs out, go to collect the third supply and the hypothetical s%$t hits the hypothetical fan.<o></o>
<o></o>
The chemist says that unbeknown to him there is no subsidy on these drugs and instead of 29 odd dollars a fortnight’s supply the price should have been $441.95 a fortnight. (hypothetically). "This is what you need to pay for the next lot and you owe us $883.90 (less the $58 odd already hypothetically paid) for the last two lots"<o></o>
<o></o>
My argument would be that had I known the real price I never would have accepted the drugs in the first place.<o></o>
<o></o>
Where would one (hypothetically) stand in this case?
<o></o>
<o></o>The chemist has now sent an invoice for the outstanding amount.<o></o>
<o></o>
Regards<o></o><o>> </o>
Neil.<o></o>

johnc

23rd November 2006, 10:22 PM

I'd start by speaking to the quack to find out why you had a script for non PBS drugs to start with. Ultimately if they are not on the PBS who is at fault? I don't see why the pharmacy would be liable for the extra cost as it was simply filling an order, perhaps you should follow up the appropriate Government department.

You may be able to hold the chemist to the quoted price but is the amount worth the angst and the risk of a bad credit rating.

This is not advice, I think you need to do a fair bit of homework as to how the sytem works before you can begin to apportion blame.

John.

Driver

23rd November 2006, 10:23 PM

Neil

I'm not a lawyer but I think the chemist is flying a kite.

He advised you of the price at the time of the first and second sales. In good faith, you paid the price that you were asked to pay. He has now discovered that he should have asked you to pay more because there is no subsidy - something he assumed would apply. Too bad. His assumption was wrong. If you had known of the very much higher price at the time of the first two purchases, you would not have bought the drugs.

A contract requires three elements: offer, acceptance and consideration. In the case of a retail purchase, the offer is you offering to buy something; the acceptance is the retailer being prepared to supply and the consideration is the agreed amount of (usually) money that changes hands (ie, the price). All three elements have to be present or no contract exists. An agreed price is part of the contract.

I strongly recommend that you tell the chemist in no uncertain (but polite) terms that you will not be paying his invoice and then immediately take the invoice to the Small Claims Tribunal, making the case that the invoice should not have been issued and asking for an order that it be withdrawn. The Small Claims Tribunal is probably your least expensive option.

All this is entirely hypothetical, of course.

joe greiner

23rd November 2006, 10:56 PM

I agree thoroughly with Driver (including not a lawyer). The previous sales were complete at their time of transaction. The chemist can't re-write history. USA is somewhat more litigious than the rest of the "civilized" world, but if someone attempted to damage my credit rating with a bogus claim, I'd consider it defamation of character, which could invite a world of woe to the chemist.

There.:mad: That's my 1.5 cents worth.

Joe

dazzler

23rd November 2006, 10:58 PM

My 2c

Looks like they made a mistake thinking it was in the pbs and have charged you the small amount. Later they have found out its not so have asked for full payment.

Im sure there is a lot of legal argument that could go on but the bottom line is that the drugs cost x and thats what should be paid. Legally you might be right, ethically perhaps not. You obviously needed the medicine so I spose what its worth is what its worth.

Given the hypotheticalness of the story i imagine there is another side??

joe greiner

24th November 2006, 12:07 AM

Bingo! "Hypothetical" indeed.:rolleyes:

Joe

kekemo

24th November 2006, 12:49 AM

Bugger cyber space. lost the message, not going to re do it all now
but 3 things

letter to chemist explaining your objection & refusal to pay, outline whole incident, plus fact your contacting & sending copies of your letter to 3 other sources,

a, the local polly's office they are really great, they will help you
b, the local newspaper as a warning to others outline stress & financial factors, you might even hear from a local lawyer, they love this stuff....
c, the medical board, they don't like these occurances either

remember polite all the time get more everything (help) with honey than vinigar

sorry the first email was really good, this is just quick outline, you can get the drift....Dont pay, your not at fault....could offer the product back, recycled of course...LOL

regards Kekemo

bsrlee

24th November 2006, 01:05 AM

I - strongly - suggest you go down to the nearest local court and speak to the staff, ask to speak to the 'Chamber Magistrate' - at least that is what they were called in NSW - he is a sitting magistrate, and is required to give free legal advice to the public. Depending on cost cutting you may get his understudy, the Clerk of the Court. If you have a small or busy local court, you should ring ahead and make an appointment.

If the local is a very large court (or you happen to work in the CBD) then there is probably a 'pro-bono' solicitor (he's paid by the government and/or the Solicitor's board) and/or a full time 'Legal Aid' solicitor, all of who are free to you - as with all 'free' services, you may have to make an appointment.

The other people to speak to are your State Government consumer watchdog organisation - they keep changing the name to confuse people, in NSW it is current 'Fair Trading' - not quite as 'legal' as the magistrate or solicitor, but fairly reliable as the matter could end up in one of their tribunals.

Go to all the above.

You may be in a sticky place if the chemist concerned is your only available chemist, but he can get in a lot of trouble if he looses and tries to make things hard for you.

kekemo

24th November 2006, 01:05 AM

forgot to say, contact your doctor thats really important, he would want to know....also
& have you considered this could be a scam......never know....thats why you have to follow up....invoicing after a sale.....never hear of that before....
Just offer the chemist 2 options........recind the invioce...or take the drugs back ( in recycled form)

The chemists actions are beyond rude....the ACC (Australias Consumers Commision) would be very interested too! Have any friendly lawyers on the woodforum...LOL
hope your ok
regards Kekemo

Chesand

24th November 2006, 06:41 AM

The pharmacist has pointed out the true cost of the drugs for future supplies
but in the interests of goodwill could bear the cost of the 2 earlier supplies or at least offer to come to some agreement (perhaps half price) for them.
These expensive drugs can be a problem as to whether they are on NHS sometimes. It sounds like the pharmacist has assumed that they were on NHS and then had the script rejected by Medicare who pay for the balance of NHS scripts. Perhaps the script was written incorrectly, or the proper authority was not obtained by the Doctor.
DAMHIK

Buzzer

24th November 2006, 06:54 AM

Hi,

In my opinion the chemist is out of line charging you more for what you have already paid for. Keep the receipts.

I would go back to the Doctor and he/she should sort it out for you, since it was their script of a none PBS item.

Cheers.

ernknot

24th November 2006, 07:40 AM

This guy is sampling his own drugs. Tell him to get stuffed.

bennylaird

24th November 2006, 07:49 AM

See Wongo and borrow some of his, may not fix the problem but you wont care:D :D :D :D

The red ones are better than the blue ones:cool:

Bleedin Thumb

24th November 2006, 07:59 AM

1. It is illegal to profit from someone else's mistake so it could be argued that the Chemist has a case.
2. As Driver pointed out you had established a contract with the Chemist to supply the drug for a set price so you too could argue that the chemist has now breached that agreement by increasing the price well and truely above reasonable expectations.

This leaves you both in a stalemate position.

Just ignore his invoice as it will cost them at least $2000 in legals to get you into court and they wouldn't have buckleys of getting any money from you anyway.
So relax they are just trying it on.

Edit: Neil by looking at your avatar I suggest you stop taking those drugs and send what you have left over to my wife.

silentC

24th November 2006, 08:39 AM

masoth

24th November 2006, 09:01 AM

Driver's given you the goods.

Your hypothetical chemist must be waaaaay out in the bush - any "modern" pharmacy is using computers and the costs are automatically adjusted when printing-off the label for the drug container.
I'd also suggest that hypothetically it would be impossible for anyone to know the price of every pill on the market, which means they would check before sale.

Fact: I have so much prescribed drug use that, usually about September each year, I reach the Safety Limit and for the rest of that year my medication is free - a small card is issued for use if I get drugs at another pharmacy. Big Brother is at work to compare drug usage in the hope of stopping abuse.:eek:

jmk89

24th November 2006, 09:13 AM

I have kept out of this discussion (mainly because I have been in a flying cigar tube for the last 24 hours and it all happened while I was out of touch).
Just on the question of mistake - in essence it all comes down to whether you know of the mistake (or should have worked it out).
If money goes into your account that you didn't put there yourself or expect to be coming there, the bank is entitled to reverse the entries or, if you have withdrawn the money or otherwise used it, to require you to repay (remember the bank has had to pay the customer who wrongly didn't get the money credited to their account, so its a question of who should bear the loss, you or the bank - if you know of the mistake then the law, and your contract with the bank, says you should bear the loss, since you never had a right to the money and you knew or ought to have known that).
Where a shop wrongly marks the price of goods they are stuck with it - they have the greater knowledge.
Now for the pharmacist who doesn't know his stock:
1. Assume that the scrip was on a PBS form and the doctor said nothing about the drug not being a PBS drug - you didn't know the mistake and the chemist was the person witht he knowledge and the access to information and expertise to find out. No valid claim.
2. Harder if doctor said to you - It's not on PBS but as I don't have any non-PBS script forms I will put it on the PBS form - you know or have reason to suspect the chemist's mistake - result chemist has a valid claim (you should have said "Oh, that's a surprise, I wasn't sure whether this was on the PBS)" - the chemist's claim is against the doctor putting a non-PBS script on a PBS form.

silentC

24th November 2006, 09:52 AM

the law say that it is illegal to profit from another persons mistake
If that's the case then why does Woollies have to honour the marked price, even if it's a mistake?

Nope, sorry I don't buy it. If you can find a case where a retailer has successfully brought action against a customer because they were mistakenly charged the wrong price for something, then I'll believe you. Try AUSTLII.

The law says you cannot profit from a crime. I haven't heard your version though. Not saying it's not the case, just haven't heard of it.

Bleedin Thumb

24th November 2006, 09:57 AM

Silent I just deleted my long winded reply to your last post as JMK89 has replied in a more accurate and succinct fashion.

Its called unconcionable conduct.. to profit from another persons mistake.

I dont think that this is the case here.

IMO lawyers can always make a case for you if you are willing to pay them enough.:p

EDIT Silent I meant second last post.

arose62

24th November 2006, 10:05 AM

I don't think Woolies HAS to sell at a wrong price.

They often do, in the interests of goodwill, but nowadays if you grab 10 of the underpriced item, they usually give you ONE item at the wrong (low) price, and decline to sell the rest of the multiple items at the wrong price.

From my Woolies-worker days, I think the pricing is an "offer to treat", and that Woolies is not obliged to complete a transaction at that price, just as the customer can offer to pay less, and is not obliged to complete a transaction at that price.

Cheers,
Andrew

Bleedin Thumb

24th November 2006, 10:11 AM

Actually I will stand corrected I should have said:-
Unconcionable conduct .. to profit from another persons mistake when you are aware of that mistake.

So if you go to woolies and you know that the price they just charged you for the bunch of carrots is lower than was advertised ....what out it may not be just your conscience following you!

Also wasn't there special legislation passed for consummer protection for food items that if you catch them charging you higher than advertised price you get that Item free?

echnidna

24th November 2006, 10:12 AM

The deal was done and payment was made at the asking price.

It is unconcionable to invoice an increased amount after you know the customer has used the goods as the customer is reasonably entitled to refuse the goods if they are not affordable in the first place.

Wongo

24th November 2006, 10:24 AM

echnidna

24th November 2006, 10:33 AM

If it went to Court and Landseka used a competent lawyer he should win as the Chemists actions were unconcionable by denying Landseka the opportunity to not purchase the products as they were not affordable.

But reply to the Chemist and decline responsibility for the invoice and payment.

Sturdee

24th November 2006, 10:33 AM

Driver

24th November 2006, 10:46 AM

The real question is : Is a chemist acting on its own behalf in claiming the subsidy from the government for the drugs supplied or is it acting as an agent of the purchaser.

That is a simple but crucial question and one for the real legal boffins and unless it is clearly spelled out in the Commonwealth Act it may need to be determined by a court of law.

If the chemist is acting on its own behalf he wears the loss, but if on your behalf you will have to pay him.

Peter.

That is a very fine point in law - and that, boys and girls, is how the lawyers wind up with all the money!

I repeat, politely tell the chemist what you think of his invoice and take the whole deal to the Small Claims Tribunal.

Irrespective of the fine point in law that Peter (Sturdee) probably quite rightly has identified, the probability is that this can be dismissed pretty quickly by keeping it simple. You were never advised, prior to the original transactions, that the price was to be higher than what you paid - in good faith. The invoice is not valid and you should not have to pay it.

tameriska

24th November 2006, 10:50 AM

Re Woollies pricing.
Hi, working in an unnamed supermarket, we have a voluntary code of practice in relation to scanning items. The policy is that if the item scans higher than the ticketed or advertised price, you recieve the first item free, and the other items at the lower price. I believe that we have a no free item policy on items over $50, or cigarettes.
I think that we can advertise pricing corrections to the catalogue, displayed in store, etc.

Pulse

24th November 2006, 10:55 AM

What was the drug? That will let us work out if there has beed a recent PBS change.

Cheers Pulse

Sturdee

24th November 2006, 11:32 AM

I repeat, politely tell the chemist what you think of his invoice and take the whole deal to the Small Claims Tribunal.

Good advice as a first step, but bear in mind that if a specific relationship is specified in a Commonwealth Act the State Small Claims Tribunals have no jurisdiction. Don't forget such provision was probaly inserted in the Act in the days of pre computers and would still be valid .:(

Also I'm sure that this is not the first instance of something like this and that the chemist was probably already advised by his industry association to invoice you and who will represent the chemist in any legal proceedings.

Peter.

Driver

24th November 2006, 12:14 PM

Also I'm sure that this is not the first instance of something like this and that the chemist was probably already advised by his industry association to invoice you and who will represent the chemist in any legal proceedings.

If this turns out to be the case in this particular hypothetical, revert to Plan B.

Plan B:-

Squeal like a stuck pig to the media. They love a story about the big end of town ganging up on the individual. This one's a ripper!

Big Pharma Monsters Bunbury Battler!

Callous Chemist Kicks Man When He's Down!

AlexS

24th November 2006, 01:00 PM

A completely non-legal suggestion, since I'm not a lawyer.

Trot along to the chemist, commiserate with him over his loss, explain that you won't be paying for all the above reasons, but you'd like to help him get his money back via the PBS or whatever, ands offer to help him however you can. If he accepts your offer, well & good. If not, see Driver's plan B.

rrich

24th November 2006, 05:23 PM

I'm uncertain of your laws, however if you driving and purchased petrol at $.35 per liter, you'ld fill your tank and be off. If the next week, at the same filling station you stopped to fill up and were told that the petrol was $1.35 per liter, you would still fill up. But then the attendent says, 'I saw you last week when we made the mistake in the pricing. You owe us $100. for the 100 liters that you purchased."

Would you pay, or just laugh, pay for your current petrol purchase and drive off. Two contracts of offering for sale. Two different prices. Some establishments sell for less in the hopes that the volume of business will take care of profits. Also it shouldn't be against the law to sell a product for less than you paid for it.

dazzler

24th November 2006, 06:07 PM

I can't believe that anyone here actually thinks the chemist has a case!!!

If you go to the supermarket and put something in your trolley that has the wrong price on it, they HAVE to sell it to you at that price. They can't later realise their mistake and send you an invoice for the difference! Come on, get real...

:rolleyes:

hi Silent

That would be me then I suppose.

Lets keep in mind that we are talking about a chemist. Now perhaps my experience with chemists is different to everyone elses but I have always found them to be helpful people who genuinely care about my family.

I have had them open up on a weekend when a family member needed a course of medication, had advice when I couldnt get to the doctor and seem to be full of dinky di aussie values.

Perhaps this chemist was different. maybe he had his dick darstadly black cape and tophat on, greased up his moustache and patted mutly his dog.
Time to put his darstedly plan to work.

Here comes our poor friend, wha ha ha, this is really expensive medicine so I will trick him by making him pay 10% value of the product a couple of times till hes hooked and then screw him......wha ha ha.....

Get a life.

He made a mistake.

What appears to be a fair dinkum, aussie, bloody hell I made a mistake sorry mate is viewed as some master plan to rip our friend off.

Ever made a mistake people?

So Landseka, hypothetically, lets keep our great aussie traditions of a fair go and at least meet him halfway.

Driver

24th November 2006, 06:48 PM

What appears to be a fair dinkum, aussie, bloody hell I made a mistake sorry mate.....

Which is normally followed by a fair dinkum Aussie "bloody hell I'll have to swallow it" not, as in this hypothetical case: "it's my mistake but someone else will have to pay, because I'm buggered if I will."

silkwood

24th November 2006, 09:16 PM

This post is full of opinions and short on facts, so I'll add my opinion:D .

Firstly, Silent, I'm sorry but the reason they charge you the lower price (on the first item) is a code of practice, not the law. Secondly, against the law to profit from another's mistake?!! Lets see the reference for that one! There are laws regarding unconscionable conduct but they don't quite cover such a broad stement.

As for the asking of reimbursement fro previous purchases, I can confidently tell you in retail and wholesale this is not allowable (notwithstanding charges of unconscionable conduct etc.). If you go into a store and a saw is labelled $40, but at the counter they tell you it's really $80, well, bad luck, until money changes hands (a contract for all intents and purposes) there is no "offer of trade/contract". If a retailer/wholesaler does this regularly or, even worse, as a matter of policy, then they are trading against the law.

So this would suggest your chemist has to wear the cost. With one caveat.. I know absolutely nothing about the chemist business or the PBS:rolleyes: .

Check with your regional Office of Consumer & Business Affairs, an easy and free process. Hypothetically, I agree there's always another side to a story and we've only heard one.

Cheers,

Mark

Landseka

24th November 2006, 09:37 PM

Thank you all for taking the time to ponder my dilemma and to make suggestions. I can now see there are a few options open to me and several courses of action to take.

A contract requires three elements: offer, acceptance and consideration. In the case of a retail purchase, the offer is you offering to buy something; the acceptance is the retailer being prepared to supply and the consideration is the agreed amount of (usually) money that changes hands (ie, the price). All three elements have to be present or no contract exists. An agreed price is part of the contract.

To me in a nutshell this is how a sale should work.

You obviously needed the medicine so I spose what its worth is what its worth.

Unfortunatly the script was for one of those "let's try these & see if they help" type drugs. A 3 month course of them at the full price would be $2600 which is way more than I would be prepared to pay for an experiment which may or may not work.

What was the drug? That will let us work out if there has beed a recent PBS change.

Cheers Pulse

I doubt the drug in question has had any change recently, it is called Thalidomide, it is very hard to get now as any of you old enough to remember it will understand why.

Plan B:-

Squeal like a stuck pig to the media. They love a story about the big end of town ganging up on the individual. This one's a ripper!

Big Pharma Monsters Bunbury Battler!

Callous Chemist Kicks Man When He's Down!

I like this Driver though it would be a last resort.:D

Get a life.

He made a mistake.

What appears to be a fair dinkum, aussie, bloody hell I made a mistake sorry mate is viewed as some master plan to rip our friend off.

Ever made a mistake people?

So Landseka, hypothetically, lets keep our great aussie traditions of a fair go and at least meet him halfway.

The thing is I also don't believe the chemist should be out of pocket over this, maybe he should have some recourse to HIS supplier. Obviously a mistake has been made by someone.....but should I have to pay for that mistake? As I said, had I known in the first place how much these tabs would cost I never would have accepted them.

Thanks again for all comments, I have looked very closely at yours too Peter, a letter is being drafted now to the Pharmacy Guild as suggested by the Dept of Fair Trading.

I will keep you updated as to any progress in this matter.

DavidG

24th November 2006, 09:55 PM

Sorry to throw a spanner into the works but Thalidomide was added to the PBS on 1st FEB 2006. but dependent on what it is used for.
Landseka - I have PMed you a link for you to read.

ozwinner

24th November 2006, 09:58 PM

Just done a google on the new uses for Thalidomide, I hope you are alright, and or not pregnant. :(

Al :(

Landseka

24th November 2006, 10:26 PM

Just done a google on the new uses for Thalidomide, I hope you are alright, and or not pregnant. :(

Al :(

Do I look it????? :p

ozwinner

24th November 2006, 10:29 PM

Not from here, but you bum looks big though!!

Al :p :p :p :p

sea dragon

25th November 2006, 12:15 AM

Do I look it????? :p
No, you do not look pregnant, but neither do you look 58 years.;)
I see the good side is the drug's Fountain of Youth effect.;)
The bad side is the gender change (but if it turns out as it did for you, maybe that should be added to the good side, too.:D
Seriously, you have been given a lot of sensible propositions and also some accurate legal advice.

Hypothetically, were I a lawyer, I would be considering Driver's initial propisition about offer, acceptance and consideration and then thinking that the first two transactions were completed.
The idea of "mistake" means that you cannot wrongly profit by someone's error when you know they have acted on a wrong basis, even moreso if you have encouraged their erroneous opinion. Akin to that is the story of a Queensland lawyer being fined $20,000 by not revealing that his client had a reduced life expectancy because of cancer that was unrelated to his claim. The "silence" should have been bad enough for the lawyer to be wrong, but he went further and was stating that his client would have been fine, but for what had given rise to his claim.

Assuming you had no knowledge of what the correctprice shouls have been and/or assumed it was at the usual sort of PBS price, you had no problem and the chemist would not entitled to attempt to charge after the event, i.e. after the contract had been completed and you had consumed the supply.
There should be a professional body that "polices" the conduct of pharmacists in your state. The Guild is more a voluntary but (I think) national association as I recall their role. If you need to write to a body, it should be to your state's pharmacy policing body because of its role in maintaining professional standards.

BTW, there are diffferent regimes by which non-PBS drugs are sometimes available. If we are talking about a small community, your GP should separately speak to the pharmacist to assist; obviously, big city folk are not as kindly disposed, usually.

Lastly, as an aside on the consumer purchases issue, the goods displayed in the shop are not necessarily said to be offered to the customer. The "offer" is more usually when the customer seeks to purchase them. Of course, the Trade Practices Act and the ACCC have put refinements on these situations. If a store advertises specific goods for sale at a price (without saying that perhaps only a few are available), when they do not have enough to satisfy consumer demand, they can be potentially fined for what is called "bait advertising".
Hope some of this is of benefit.

boban

25th November 2006, 12:36 AM

SeaDragon,

I was fortunate enough to know another lawyer who lived in Cremorne and had a home in the mountains. Unfortunately he passed away last year and will be missed my many.

I would hypothetically agree with you. However, I cant see why Landseka would be commencing the action as suggested by someone. The onus is clearly on the chemist.

Rossluck

25th November 2006, 07:36 AM

hi Silent

Get a life.

He made a mistake.

What appears to be a fair dinkum, aussie, bloody hell I made a mistake sorry mate is viewed as some master plan to rip our friend off.

Ever made a mistake people?

So Landseka, hypothetically, lets keep our great aussie traditions of a fair go and at least meet him halfway.

My view is right in the middle of Dazzler's and Silent's. It's true that the chemist can't brow beat you into paying for his mistake. The fact that he tried to invoice you into submission loses him some brownie points.

On the other hand, if he is a decent person, maybe you should talk with him about some reasonable compromise, where he gets some (there should be no profit for him!) of his money and you give the drugs the flick.

Just remember, anyone in business cops some bad debts, it's just life. We had a letter this week from some receivers saying that $3,500 we are owed by a building company is a component of around $2,000,000 the now bankrupt company owes in total.:mad: It's gone.

dazzler

25th November 2006, 09:04 AM

Which is normally followed by a fair dinkum Aussie "bloody hell I'll have to swallow it" not, as in this hypothetical case: "it's my mistake but someone else will have to pay, because I'm buggered if I will."

no worries driver, as long as we remember when the shoe is on the other foot of course...

:D

Driver

25th November 2006, 09:59 AM

no worries driver, as long as we remember when the shoe is on the other foot of course...

:D

Absolutely right. It has to work both ways. Now we are in agreement. :)

dazzler

25th November 2006, 10:10 AM

Absolutely right. It has to work both ways. Now we are in agreement. :)

You n me....peas in a pod :p

Driver

25th November 2006, 10:13 AM

You n me....peas in a pod :p

We-e-ll, up to a point. I mean, we don't see eye to eye on everything:-

GO EAGLES!!!!

dazzler

25th November 2006, 04:03 PM

Eagles

:rolleyes:

silentC

27th November 2006, 09:33 AM

Firstly, Silent, I'm sorry but the reason they charge you the lower price (on the first item) is a code of practice, not the law. Secondly, against the law to profit from another's mistake?!! Lets see the reference for that one! There are laws regarding unconscionable conduct but they don't quite cover such a broad stement.

1. When I did my Commerce subject at high school, we were taught that the shop had to honour the marked price. Maybe that has changed, dunno not into retail.

2. I never said that it was against the law to profit from another's mistakes. Go back and read the posts and don't attribute other people's comments to me.

Here comes our poor friend, wha ha ha, this is really expensive medicine so I will trick him by making him pay 10% value of the product a couple of times till hes hooked and then screw him......wha ha ha.....

Get a life.

He made a mistake.
Yeah good one mate. Nobody is saying that he tried one on, although I reckon he is now. My local chemist is a good bloke too, well respected. It's not about that, it's about who should pay for his mistake. Why should it be the customer?

Pulse

27th November 2006, 09:43 PM

Guys, a pharmacy is a shop but the dispensing of medications is not like selling petrol. Medications are not just inventory with a wholesale price and a sale price with the profit going to the retailer.

Sturdee was on the money, drugs are dispensed under PBS guidelines, and the PBS subsidises the cost leaving you around $30 to pay. Your doctor should have prescribed it under these guidelines. If not then your doctor really should have let you know what you were up for. This is called informed financial consent to your treatment. You should have been given the option to discuss this treatment and cheaper alternatives.

Speak to the pharmacist and ask why it wasn't covered by the PBS. then discuss this with your doctor, I'm sure you will find a solution.

Cheers
Pulse

Pulse

27th November 2006, 09:57 PM

it's about who should pay for his mistake. Why should it be the customer?

Silent I agree, but the point is that the government has not agreed to fund the medication outside of particular indications.

Who's fault is it?
little Johnnies?
the pharmaceutical advisory commitee for strict PBS guidelines?
the prescriber?
the drug company?

The pharmacist and Neil are caught in the middle. I hope it works out OK.
Cheers
Pulse

Wood Butcher

27th November 2006, 10:09 PM

Silent I agree, but the point is that the government has not agreed to fund the medication outside of particular indications.

Who's fault is it?
little Johnnies?
the pharmaceutical advisory commitee for strict PBS guidelines?
the prescriber?
the drug company?

The pharmacist and Neil are caught in the middle. I hope it works out OK.
Cheers
Pulse

I think that in this case it is wholely the fault of the pharmacist for not knowing his product and its worth.

Personally given the amount of computerisation in pharmacy nowadays and constant linking with government managed systems to update product information I'm amazed it happened.

Sturdee

27th November 2006, 10:34 PM

Personally given the amount of computerisation in pharmacy nowadays and constant linking with government managed systems to update product information I'm amazed it happened.

I tended to agree with that until I looked at a PBS prescription form.

The form states that you certify that the info relating to any entitlement to free or concessional pharmeceutical benefits is not false or misleading. It also states (in the fine print :eek: ) that the info on the form will be used to assess your entitlement to benefits under the PBS and determine the payments due to pharmacists.

This reinforces my view that legally the chemist supplies the medicines at retail cost and after your claim is actually received by Medicare (or Veterans affairs etc) your entitlement to PBS concession is calculated and the chemist is reimbursed for the difference between what you paid and the cost of the medicine.

Any entitlement to PBS is with you, the claimant, as it varies between different people (being health care card holders and/or safety net holders) and the type of approved medicine.

Again I believe that, notwitstanding normal practices, the Act will require the chemist to be paid by Neil. Maybe Neil will have a claim against his Doctor for not pointing out that the course of medicine may not be covered by the PBS which if he had would have given Neil the chance to say no.

Peter.

silentC

28th November 2006, 08:37 AM

It's a shame Naomi has quit. She would have loved this story.

Rossluck

28th November 2006, 08:52 PM

I guess you never really know the full story when you get a description from one side only. I went through a similar thing with a chemist in Mt Isa. I ordered a packet of ten sheets of Cibachrome photographic paper (the spelling looks wrong, doesn't matter) and they accidently orded ten packets. They tried, pretty well demanded, that I buy the whole lot, but as I pointed out to them, photographic paper isn't meant to sit on the shelf of a shop in Mt Isa's heat, and if they wanted to sell it to me they had to let me take it home and stick it in my fridge and pay it off in installments. They wouldn't do it, so I bought my pack of ten and left.

I felt at the time that the mistake was theirs, and I think that that's the case here. I tried to do the decent thing, and I think that the same effort should be made in the case of the drugs in this instance. But, if the chemist won't come to the party, bye bye.