Kinda legal question.........

[masoth]

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]

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you didn't put there yourself or expect to be coming there, the bank is entitled to reverse the entries or, if you have withdrawn the money or otherwise used it, to require you to repay (remember the bank has had to pay the customer who wrongly didn't get the money credited to their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]

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]

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.

EDIT Silent I meant second last post.

[arose62]

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]

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]

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]

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.

The drugs arrive & and on collection one was charged 29 odd dollars for the 2 week supply.

Just prior to the supply running out, one re-ordered another 2 week supply.

Collect same & charged (hypothetically) 29 odd dollars again.

Re-order just before this supply runs out, go to collect the third supply and the hypothetical s%$t hits the hypothetical fan.

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"

My argument would be that had I known the real price I never would have accepted the drugs in the first place.

Where would one (hypothetically) stand in this case?

The chemist has now sent an invoice for the outstanding amount.

Regards>
Neil.

I think this was a question in my HSC maths exam. You owe them $825.90 hypothetically of course.

Seriously it will be wrong if you are forced to pay back the money. As you said if you had known the real price you never would have bought the drugs in the first place.

Oh, I am not a laywer. Thank goodness.

[echnidna]

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]

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.

[Driver]

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]

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]

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

Cheers Pulse

[Sturdee]

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]

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!