State Police in Michigan let me leave without paying for gas......

[Wiccan Warrior]

Yes this is really funny ......Quite a while ago I was at a Shell station getting gas at 11:55pm one night getting gas the price came too around $28 something all I had on me was a $50 so I went to pay it, not seeing any sign stating no $100 or $50 at all, and the cashier told me that she would not take the 50. I told her that there is nothing stating she cannot take it not at the pumps or even in the store, she then told me she would hold my license and I could go get it broke somewhere and come back....LOL...I said I don't think I'm going to be driving without my ID.

She said fine we will call the Police I said great heres the #....she called...

not 10 minutes later a State Officer showed up and heard her story, the officer told her she had no signs saying otherwise that she should take it cause she told the officer she could break the $50 no problem....She still told him no he looked at her then looked at me and told the clerk "This man tried to faithfully pay you for your services with US currency and you denied it therefore you have given him the services for free I suggest you get a sign up soon....

She said they would file a suit against the MSP for theft....lol right.....there was a sign up the next day...

Just wanted to share a funny night with ya :hi: Mornin...

[Squatch]

1. The cop was wrong

"...therefore you have given him the services for free..."

The debt remained unsettled and the police officer has no authority to enter into the business transaction you were legally bound to.

In other words, you still owe the gas station money for that transation and they have the legal authority to seek payment.

[Wiccan Warrior]

2. Nope you are wrong

I tried to pay and she denied me with no cause too and she wanted me to drive illegally .

[datasuspect]

3. i am inclined to agree with you

she failed to accept an appropriate form of payment. she failed to do it in front of a cop.

you're a lucky person! congrats!

[Squatch]

8. She's stealing

A business can, in fact, refuse certain types of legal tender.

[Wiccan Warrior]

10. NOT UNLESS IT'S POSTED per Mi law

[datasuspect]

39. i don't see anything in the MI compiled laws or criminal codes

that covers a situation when a merchant refuses legal tender to satisfy a debt.

common sense rules in this scenario.

[jberryhill]

259. Then (a) you aren't looking, and (b) the OP is still wrong

The transaction is governed by MI 440.2311

The merchant may specify the manner of performance in payment. If the merchant doesn't do so, and this delays performance by the buyer, the buyer is excused for a reasonable time until performance can be made.

[youngdem]

25. Not true.

Read the dinero.

"legal tender, for ALL debts public and private"

Plus, most states require that such a policy be posted if you attempt to relieve yourself of the requirement.

I have skated on small ticket items on several occasions in exactly this circumstance. Went to pay for gas or a consumed food item, and they wouldn't take my large bill, and after insisting the counter person READ the money they are holding, walked out with my money since they wouldn't break it.


She was wrong, as are you.

[Wiccan Warrior]

27. oh well I was not going to drive without my license

to get her change.

[youngdem]

36. Just to be clear, I wasn't talking to you, Wiccan Warrior, you clearly know what you are doing

[Cha]

238. Talk about a catch 22..

a real conundrum as it were. Glad it came out positive for you.

Musta been one real stubborn gas money taker.

[Atman]

74. delete

delete

[Squatch]

77. Thank you, very much!

Finally, a reasoned response.

[Atman]

83. I moved it to post #99

I replied to the wrong poster, but thank you for your thumbs-up. I'm not sure why this would even require a second thought...if the OP INTENDED to pay anyway, the fact that she only had a large me doesn't release her from her original intention and obligation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1407008&mesg_id=1408001

.

[Horse with no Name]

56. Huh?

They most certainly cannot unless it is posted.

[Hawkowl]

263. Nonsense

You can not refuse U.S. currency to pay debts.

[Squatch]

5. You still owe for the gas, and until you pay, you are stealing.

A police officer cannot render a business transaction null and void:

"There being no other federal law prohibiting private businesses, persons or organizations from specifying other methods of payment they choose to accept or refuse, such entitites therefore are free to insist on payment in private currency, for example, or to refuse larger denomination banknotes. Some small stores in the United States have a policy of not accepting large notes, often above $20 or $50, either at all or at certain times of day; this allows them to keep fairly small quantities of money in the register and deter robbery, and also serves to limit one's risk of accepting counterfeit notes."

A business does not need to "have a sign", but can inform you of their policy through verbal means. Sorry, but you still need to pay for that gas.

[Wiccan Warrior]

9. BUT THAT SIGN HAS TO BE POSTED per Mi law..

[Squatch]

11. Show me.

[Wiccan Warrior]

13. LOL look it up yourself...

She could have refused my $$ cause she didn't like the way I looked and wanted a drive off I stopped that from happening..

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[orleans]

224. i would look at it as a temporary loan then. and go back and pay

the station (or if it was too far out of my way, i'd send them a check and a letter explaining what happened)

if i was the manager of that station i'd be wild to think that my employee let someone walk away with free anything rather than breaking the $50

you're not screwing over the oil company--you're hurting a small business.

like i said, it turned out to be more of a temporary loan for you.

do the right thing.

[LanternWaste]

52. hoo boy

:eyes:

[Richard Steele]

111. No, but the CREDITOR can render an obligation "null and void" by DECLINING PAYMENT.

As happened in the situation described in the OP.

And that "verbal means" you mention isn't valid AFTER THE FACT,
even if it was ever valid at all.

[MNDemNY]

118. This stems from "common law"

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

146. "Sorry, but you still need to pay for that gas." Legally, perhaps.

However, I would happily steal it in this case.

[pschoeb]

283. Not at all, if a creditor refuses a reasonable attempt at payment

It is up to the creditor to pursue the debt afterwords. The debtor is actually under no further obligations to try to pay the debt. The creditor is only allowed a reasonable time to claim the debt after refusal, so I'm pretty sure that Wiccan Warrior is not only not violating criminal law, but not liable in civil action either.

[Hissyspit]

4. She can't legally hold his license, if I'm not mistaken.

[Wiccan Warrior]

6. Yes she wanted me to committ a Crime and the Cop didn't like that one.......n/t

[Cha]

240. Yeah, your driving with

a valid license trumps her stubborn refusal to give you change from a freakin' fifty that was NOT posted. I doubt if the policeman is worried about this.

[datasuspect]

7. it's a violation of law to be in possession of someone else's i.d.

at least in our jurisdiction. saw a guy get busted for having someone else's i.d. at a beach party once.

[treestar]

222. ITA. The gas station could sue for debt, but that was its only recourse

Funny how people believe they each carry the police power around in their own individual persons.

[NobleCynic]

137. If memory serves, unless it is a pre-condition of a transaction

One cannot refuse US currency or the debt is null and void legally. It might be a hold over from the 1800's when the feds were creating the bank of the US and trying to shut down local currencies. I could be wrong about this, but legally the debt is null and void. That is why people have the signs put up. With a sign up, it can be claimed as a precondition of the transaction.

There are other reasons, like if a bank is allowed to refuse to accept US currency, they could in theory foreclose on a mortgage at any time for any reason by simply refusing to accept whatever currency is tendered to pay for it.

I think the courts may have made exceptions for people making nuisance payments (i.e. only in pennies), but for the most part this is an unintended consequence of the law as it stands.

[conscious evolution]

218. Legal tender for all debts public and PRIVATE.

Payment was offered and refused.

The cop had jurisdiction the moment the clerk called the police.

[sandnsea]

237. If you ever reject payment

You're sol. That's law in just about every sort of monetary transaction.

[jberryhill]

250. No

This was a payment TERM. It was not a general refusal of payment, nor a release from the debt under Michigan Code 440, section 2311.

[sandnsea]

254. No

440.2311 is in reference to shipment of goods.

440.3603 refers to tender of payment

If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge..

[jberryhill]

256. "to pay an INSTRUMENT"

Dude, you are in the wrong UCC chapter.

Chapter 2 governs the obligations of buyer and seller in sales contracts.

We are in sales here (UCC Chapter 2), not commercial paper and negotiable instruments (UCC Chapter 3).

The sale of goods is covered under 440.2****. You are looking at something entirely unrelated.

440.3104 Additional definitions.

Sec. 3104.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4), “negotiable instrument” means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if all of the following apply:

(a) It is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder.

(b) It is payable on demand or at a definite time.

(c) It does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment, an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral, or a waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor.

(2) “Instrument” means a negotiable instrument.

The section you are looking at is the rules for payments of checks, promissory notes, and the like. It does not relate to obligations to pay contracts for the sale of goods.

[sandnsea]

261. It doesn't matter

The statute you referred to yourself called it a breach.

Where such specification would materially affect the other party's performance but is not seasonably made or where one party's cooperation is necessary to the agreed performance of the other but is not seasonably forthcoming, the other party in addition to all other remedies

(a) is excused for any resulting delay in his own performance; and

(b) may also either proceed to perform in any reasonable manner or after the time for a material part of his own performance treat the failure to specify or to cooperate as a breach by failure to deliver or accept the goods.

If one party doesn't cooperate, the other party is a) excused for any delay, and b) treat the failure to cooperate as a breach.

I am too tired to get the rest of the code, you know full well it exists in area after area of the law. You cannot refuse to accept payment and then turn around and go after the person for not paying. You know better.

[jberryhill]

265. I'm going to guess you haven't taken a course in this

The goods have been delivered and accepted.

That section defines obligations of buyer and of seller (in some transactions both parties may exchange goods and/or payments).

If the buyer doesn't cooperate in specifying the manner of delivery then YES, the seller may refuse delivery. If the seller doesn't deliver in the manner specified then YES, the buyer may refuse to accept delivery.

If Wiccan here had siphoned the gas out and refused the delivery of the gas, then that would be fine. But Wiccan didn't refuse delivery of the goods.

This whole statute section is the Uniform Commercial Code. It is virtually the same in EVERY state. It should follow or be included in your normal contracts course.

[Vinca]

12. I'll side with the cop and common sense. If she was able to make

change and there were no signs, it was her choice not to accept payment.

[Squatch]

15. It was her choice to demand *other forms* of payment

and that is what she did. She did not say, "oh, you don't have anything smaller than a $50...gas is on me."

[Wiccan Warrior]

16. You just don't read do ya

The cop gave her a chance cause she wanted ME to commit a crime herself.

[Squatch]

17. And you enjoy moral equivocation, don't ya?

A police officer has NO AUTHORITY to render ANY private business transaction null and void. That jusrisdiction lies squarely with the courts.

[datasuspect]

18. ANY private business transaction?

what if i attempt to purchase $50 dollars worth of cocaine?

[Squatch]

20. That is not a business transaction. That is a crime.

[datasuspect]

21. it still involves the payment of money for a service

[Wiccan Warrior]

22. Flamers gotta love them...n/t

[datasuspect]

24. i'm on your side

you're not calling me a flamer are you?

[Wiccan Warrior]

29. NO NO not at all wrong reply my bad n/t

[Wiccan Warrior]

19. You still don't read do ya

SHE WANTED ME TO COMMIT A CRIME AS WELL...and she wanted to ILLEGALLY hold my license.

[Squatch]

23. Well, what do you want me to tell ya? She's an idiot.

That STILL doesn't change the fact that you are still indebted to the gas station for the purchase price of the gasoline.

[Wiccan Warrior]

26. No I'm not cause she wanted me to commit a crime

I feel that's her fine for wanting me too.

[Squatch]

28. So, now YOU have the authority to leverage fines?

Wow, with that twisted view of the law, I can see how you think stealing gas is no biggie.

[Wiccan Warrior]

30. LOL oh silly man

the cop said it was ok if the company had a problem with it the police had my info they could have got a hold of me and I would have met an officer there with my money I was honest with the Cop and he told me to leave I DID WHAT THE OFFICER said. They need to get ahold of the MSP then not me.

[Squatch]

32. Did the MSP engage in a business transaction with the gas station?

No, YOU did.

The MSP is not a party to that transaction and cannot render the business transaction void. The only people who can do that are the parties to the transaction, and if they are still not satisfied, then the courts rule.

[Wiccan Warrior]

33. Ok I'll try it one more time.**sigh***

it was a criminal investigation at that time wasn't it? yes it was therefore the officer had ALL THE RIGHT to get involved.

[Squatch]

35. Was a crime committed?

Why, yes there was! You STOLE gas.

The gas station still represents the unsatisfied party in this business transaction and has every right to seek satisfaction through the courts. And, I hope they do.

[Wiccan Warrior]

37. NO I DIDN'T gawd you don't get it

Anyone home hello.....I waited for the cop a potential crime was being committed after the cop figured everything out it was determined that since I was trying to pay I didn't commit a crime SHE did for wanting to hold my ID get it now?

[Squatch]

40. And I'm telling you, the presence of a police officer is irrelevant

to the matter of you completing a business transaction.

Let me ask you a question: you tried to pay, but the clerk demanded other forms of payment which you did not have. You've had plenty of time to secure other forms of payment. Do you intend to return to the gas station to complete the transaction?

[Wiccan Warrior]

42. ONE MORE TIME

I already got the gas I could not leave to go get change at that time an Officer had to be called therefor it was a Civil complaint and the Officer had the right to make the call...gawd..

[Squatch]

44. Question still stands.

You've had plenty of time to get acceptable forms of payment. Do you intend to return to the gas station to satisfy your debt?

[ret5hd]

45. Hey, if the attendant wanted to reverse the transaction, let 'im get...

off his a$$ and siphon it out of the tank. Othewrwise, take the $50.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moochy]

270. Only thing standing is your ridiculous subthreads

No wonder i had you on ignore.

[VTMechEngr]

135. No. If legal US tender is refused, the payment is void. n/t

[jberryhill]

262. Not under MI 440.2311 it's not...

The buyer is only excused for the delay required to satisfy a late-notified payment term.

[Hawkowl]

264. U.S. law supsersedes state law with regard to currency

Under the commerce clause.

[jberryhill]

268. OMG...

No federal law supersedes the Uniform Commercial Code with respect to contracts. The constitution also guarantees freedom to contract, and it is a state issue.

This is first-year law school material.

If I ask you for seven dollars, you owe me seven dollars. If you hand me a ten dollar bill, you have not tendered payment of seven dollars. I'll be happy to keep your three, because no law says I have to make change.

And that's the point here.

You go argue with a coke machine when the "exact change" light is flashing.

It's an unseasonably made payment term, and any second year law student would get this answer correct.

[datasuspect]

43. there was danger of a crime

the clerk intended to confiscate the identification of the purchaser. that is illegal.

the proof of theft would entail that the purchaser INTENDED to deprive or in fact deprived or gain illegally goods, services, or chattels of the seller.

the purchaser was willing to satisfy the debt using U.S. currency.

[Lost4words]

50. People like you stole my country. Off to Ignore you go!

where ewere you on 12/12/2000?

[Squatch]

51. Camp Casey, Korea

probably freezing my ass off at the Twin Bridges Training Area. Here's a picture of a previous exercise at the same location (I'm the guy in the background on the right)

[Lost4words]

63. Is this where they taught you to think?

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. And this has exactly WHAT to do with this subject?

Should all of us now post pictures of ourselves at work? Does that prove something about our credibility?

[Squatch]

68. He asked me where I was in 2000, for some reason.

I responded. Really, it's not *that* hard to follow.

[Lost4words]

Can you tell me what occurred on that date? Where was your mind

on december 12/2000 not where were you physically, and why would I care where you were physically.

the Answer is no you cant tell me what happened on 12/12/2000 and I am not surprised.

[AllegroRondo]

81. I was there in 1996

looks like it hasnt changed a bit.
:hi:

[Squatch]

84. The only time it really changes is when it rains

Dear Lord, I have never seen so much mud.

[annarbor]

94. THE OP Did NOT STEAL GAS

Sorry, but stealing/theft/larceny is the INTENT to take something with no intention of paying for it.
He tried. He tried in the presence of the Trooper. It's the gas station's loss.

Ann Arbor

[Wiccan Warrior]

96. What's funny is if I had 58$ in gas and paid with 3 20's could she deny that cause it's over $50?

[annarbor]

100. As you can see Wiccan Warrior

I too am from Michigan. What you did was entirely legal. The civil loss belongs to the gas station. They'll need to update their signs in the future. The clerk was far too rigid in this situation and should have placed a call to the owner with the Trooper present. I'm sure the clerk would have been advised to take your cash....

Ann Arbor

[tblue37]

115. The clerk might well have to make up the difference out of her own salary.

Often stores do that when the register receipts don't match sales receipts. But if that happens, it would serve her right for being an idiot.

On the other hand, it is also possible that she was afraid she would have gotten in trouble for accepting a $50 bill. Still, a little common sense would have shown her that once the cop told her to accept payment, she herself would have been completely off the hook as far as responsibility was concerned.

It sounds as though the clerk was either not that bright or simply power-tripping.

[malaise]

41. Take your money and go out and enjoy a nice

dinner. You attempted to pay. She refused your money and wanted you to commit a crime. No sign, no crime on your part.

Some gas stations where I am do not accept debit cards so before they fill you up they ask if you have cash or a credit card. If they don't ask, it's their problem.

[proud2BlibKansan]

65. And you must be an attorney, since you know so much about the law

Oh wait a minute . . .

[Squatch]

66. You don't need to be a lawyer...

to know what's right and wrong.

[proud2BlibKansan]

69. I an yielding to the cop's opinion in this situation

He would be the right and wrong expert.

[Squatch]

73. So very, very sad: "I am yielding to the cop..."

[LanternWaste]

213. 'cause God forbid anyone ever yield to a cop's authority

'cause God forbid anyone ever yield to a cop's authority. How un-progressive like and counter-intuitive to being an individual can one person get, I ask. Can you imagine the chaos and bedlam if everyone obeyed the cops for a day? Total chaos...


:eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

72. I am yielding to the cop's opinion in this situation

He would be the right and wrong expert.

[uppityperson]

105. Sometimes right/wrong does not = legal/illegal

knowing the law can help you know what's legal/illegal.

[MNDemNY]

119. Right and wrong, often different than legal or illegal.

[treestar]

226. "stealing" is a criminal term; it's not the case here because there

was no criminal intent.

The station could sue for debt - however, the filing fee even in small claims court would be greater than the debt, probably.

Sometimes you have to use common sense. This lady didn't. She is a rule follower, to a point of absurdity.

[AngryOldDem]

55. Wiccan...just go back and pay the lady the $50, willya?

Maybe then Squatch will be able to let this go.

(And good for you!)

[jberryhill]

248. She could have asked you to come back for the change tomorrow

You were asked to pay X. You did not tender X.

It would not have been a CRIME for the gas station to hold your $50 until it had change. That would require that you trust them. Of course, that is what you were asking them to do.

This is the MI sales law:

440.2311 Specification of performance; assortment and shipment of goods; remedies.

Sec. 2311.

(1) An agreement for sale which is otherwise sufficiently definite (subsection (3) of section 2204) to be a contract is not made invalid by the fact that it leaves particulars of performance to be specified by one of the parties. Any such specification must be made in good faith and within limits set by commercial reasonableness.

(2) Unless otherwise agreed specifications relating to assortment of the goods are at the buyer's option and except as otherwise provided in subsections (1)(c) and (3) of section 2319 specifications or arrangements relating to shipment are at the seller's option.

(3) Where such specification would materially affect the other party's performance but is not seasonably made or where one party's cooperation is necessary to the agreed performance of the other but is not seasonably forthcoming, the other party in addition to all other remedies

(a) is excused for any resulting delay in his own performance; and

(b) may also either proceed to perform in any reasonable manner or after the time for a material part of his own performance treat the failure to specify or to cooperate as a breach by failure to deliver or accept the goods.

Now, at best, what we have in her refusing your $50 is an unseasonably made condition on your performance which, although unseasonable, is commercially reasonable.

Therefore, you are excused from a delay in your performance of the payment obligation, but you are not excused from the obligation generally.

[Kingshakabobo]

71. With all due respect, Squatch, you are wrong........

Well, at least partially wrong in that it is not "theft" in the criminal sense of the word. MAYBE the tort of CONVERSION (the common law civil version of stealing) or some other specific Michigan tort pertaining to merchandise. It's not a crime because the OP had every intention to pay for the merchandise. That intention was CLEARLY demonstrated by his desire to give the clerk a fifty dollar bill. Also, waiting for the police to arrive to make another attempt to pay pretty much solidified any intention to pay for the merchandise. IF a sign was posted, the station MIGHT have a theft case because one would say the OP pumped the gas with the reasonable expectation he wouldn't be able to pay for the merchandise.....BUT that would be a stretch and I certainly wouldn't want to see people jailed for failure to notice such a sign -I doubt the police would either- especially in a busy gas station where signage is plastered all over the place for everything under the sun.

The cop made a good judgment call by leaving this one as a "civil matter" after trying to get the clerk to take the fifty dollar bill. If he did, in fact, say the OP was no longer obligated, he was wrong. Usually the police will say "this is a civil matter."


Where you might be correct is there probably IS still an outstanding debt owed by the OP.......but that is up to the station to collect if they want to go through the hassle. I don't think the OP is under any legal OR moral obligation to spend 10 seconds of his time or 10 cents of his gas to return to the store and make the debt good. I wouldn't - especially since they refused to make change even though they were able. If the station wants the money, they will have to subpoena license plate information, file a claim with the courts, have it served and then stand in front of a judge and explain why wasting the court's time is a better use of public resources than accepting a fifty dollar bill in a store when change was, in fact, available. At most, the station MIGHT expect to get their 50 dollars - but spend a couple hundred dollars to do it.

To the station, I say good luck with that

[MNDemNY]

113. Here-here!

[John Q. Citizen]

123. This is the crux of the biscuit, certainly. The station probably would prevail

in a civil court yet would lose more in costs than the value of the debt.

And ethically, the customer acted in good faith. Also the customer was forced to spend their time waiting for the police, etc, when the station had neglected to post publically it's policy on payment.

[PA Democrat]

197. DH has practiced criminal law for 25 years + and he said pretty much the same thing.

No crime was committed, because the OP had no intent to steal the gas when he pumped it. While the owner could pursue the matter in a civil lawsuit, it wouldn't be worth his time or money.

I'm surprised that the gas station owner didn't have better procedures in place and didn't train clerks better. If the owner didn't want to take large bills, he should have signs clearly posted to inform customers. The other option is to require customers to prepay during hours when limited amounts of money are available to the clerk to make change.

I don't know of any rational person who would give a clerk their driver's license to hold. I would probably call the station owner the next day and offer to pay, but not until after I told him that he would never receive another dime of business from me, and that I would let my friends and neighbors know about the treatment I had received. A smart business person would apologize and probably say don't bother about the $28.

[jberryhill]

249. You have it correct

Under the UCC it is an unseasonably made, yet commercially reasonable, payment term.

The buyer is excused from a delay in performance because the payment term was not specified up front.

The buyer is not excused from the debt.

[conscious evolution]

221. The police officer did not

render the transaction null and void.The clerk did that by refusing the payment.
All the police officer did was to affirm to WW that it was legal for him to leave.

[Vinca]

31. It was common sense to make the change if she could!

But I can top the story. When I was a cop I was called to one of those self-serve gas stations because the cranky, old clerk was convinced some guy had stiffed him for A PENNY! He wanted me to chase the guy down and arrest him. Common sense ruled there, too.

[rfranklin]

38. But you're still indebted to him for that penny, aren't you?

Now, admit you're a thief!

[LanternWaste]

53. Good thing she didn't demand two chickens and a rooster...

Good thing she didn't demand two chickens and a rooster...

[VTMechEngr]

139. That is not the law.

I have seen other cases where a clerk refused valid US currency, and the buyer got to walk away without paying legally. My personal favorite was the clerk who thought $2 bills were fake, and refused to take them. A cop let the guy go under similar rationale without paying.

US CURRENCY is LEGAL Tender for all debts, public and private. If they refuse this legal tender, then they have in effect under the law, refused payment.

[treestar]

223. It is legal tender, though. She's making a demand regarding the

denomination.

This gas station is out of the loop. Most others have credit card swiping or won't let you pump until you pay first. They could do what every other station does and settle this up front, before the gas gets pumped.

At the price of gas these days, change for a fifty isn't going to be impossible.

[safeinOhio]

34. I saw it happen in Michigan last year

A trucker was in paying for his fuel. He was trying to pay with a check and the clerk said they would not take it and called the local cops. The other gas pumps in the front had the "no personal" check sign.
The cop said there was no sign so she had to accept his check. The clerk called her boss and ended up taking the check.
I would think the law looks at intent. You were willing to pay the bill. Of course they could spend time and money to take you to court for the $28.00.

[shrike]

47. Good for the cop

DH and I side with him. And with you.

Jesus Christ, $50 isn't even that much money anymore. What was her problem?

[dorkulon]

48. I will never understand why people won't take 50s or 100s...

...it makes no sense. If you have 2 twenties in your drawer, you have change for a 50. What else are you saving them for?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

57. there is actually a really good reason

on a late night shift at convenience stores you are usually required to keep VERY LITTLE money in the drawer. In the case of someone walking up with a $50, it may drain your ability to make change. Most convenience stores have a safe that is REAL easy to put money into (to keep your drawer from being 'heavy') but have a time release (usually 10 minutes) to prevent you from taking money out immediately (to discourage thieves). If someone gets all your change with their big bill, it may take up to 10 minutes to replenish your change with a 'drop' from the safe. And during that time you may not be able to make change for a $5, let alone another big bill.

I know...I have been there.

sP

OnEdit : That said, there should have been a sign posted.

[dorkulon]

93. But if you have 2 twenties...

...they are useless for anything other than making change for a fifty. Beyond that, you're making change for a ten.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

97. yep...thus the difficulty

no twenties in the drawer past 10PM...it was the law for us in that part of town...

sP

[dorkulon]

142. OK, but the OP states

that the woman said she had change. So, at least in this case, it's plain stupid.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

149. in that case, if she is SURE she had change

I would agree...make change...drop the $50 into the safe and go on about your business. The only worry would be if she DID have $22 in change, and that would have left he with almost nothing. Because in my situation years ago...I could have given back $22 in change...but it would have left me with less than $8 in the drawer...and most if not all of that would have been in coin.

The simple fact is, they should have had a sign denoting policy. And, I believe the OP should go back and give the station the money for the gas...to me it is just right thing to do.

sP

[Neshanic]

49. Is there a plague of stupidity in Michigan?

First, they allow you to pump gas in Michigan BEFORE paying?

Jesus, that's insane, or incredibly trusting of the gas station owners there. You must have the world's most stupid gas station owners.

Here in Arizona it is plastered everywhere, pay cash first, then you get your gas.

Riddle me this you folks that think the OP is a thief.

Here in Arizona, a tankfull can cost(like everywhere else) 75 bucks. Now the signs are all over saying they will not take 100's. OK, but now they will not take "old twenties".

Are they obligated to take the 20 currency or not, even if the money is considered "old?"

[ProdigalJunkMail]

58. had someone pay me once with a $5 silver certificate

minted in 1935 (I think). I gladly accepted it and exchanged one of my fivers in it's place in the drawer. Still have the silver certificate. I think it is probably worth more than face value to a collector as it is in mint condition. Now if I can just remember which book it is pressed in...

:-)

sP

[MiniMe]

59. Interesting question on the 20's

If the money is still in circulation, I don't see how they can say they will take one kind of 20 and not another. It's age discrimination. But on a more serious note, I have some $2 from back when they were printing it. It is legal tender, and I better not be turned down on using it.

I can understand the larger bills. As another poster said, at night, the clerks only have a limited amount of change. Plus you have the counterfeit problem. Crooks are much more likely to create larger bills.

At least they had a sign posted

[tammywammy]

140. Both older $20s and the $2 are legal tender

I can see if you try and spend the $2, if the cashier hasn't ever seen them before being surprised, but there shouldn't be a problem.

When I worked at Six Flags, many years ago, I was helping in the parking toll plaza. Parking was $8, so we had a ton of $2 bills to give out. Made sense. :)

[Liberal In Texas]

54. I would say that you haven't stolen anything, but you still are in debt to pay for the gas.

Just because someone isn't able (or in this case it seems, too stupid) for some reason to collect a debt on the spot doesn't negate a fiduciary duty of sorts on your part to pay for what you have purchased.

However, since you have made an offer to pay for the gas, and the vendor has refused (or continues to refuse) to accept legal payment you are under no further obligation to do anything. In this case, I would contact the store manager, and explain the situation, offer to bring in the $50 bill for payment the next time you are in the area. If he still refuses to accept payment of the debt, I would think you would be off the hook permanently.

It's more than likely that the clerk has been made responsible to pay for the bill by her employer, even though the poor management of the business is to blame for the situation.

In most situations, if you walk into a store, and to purchase some item, and the currency is refused, you just leave and end up going to another store to buy the item you wanted. But with a service station, where the gas has already been dispensed, returning the product is almost impossible.

One last thing, this is a civil matter, not criminal. You did not steal the gas.

[LibDemAlways]

60. One time due to a credit card screw up I ended up not

paying for a department store purchase. I realized the error immediately when the bill came and called the store. I was told to come down and speak with the credit dept. clerk in person. I went to the store and spent a half hour trying to explain what had happened. The clerk didn't understand, so I asked to speak with a supervisor. The supervisor eventually figured it out, but told me she couldn't manually override the error and that eventually things would "sort themselves out." The next month when the bill was still wrong, I again called the store, spoke with the credit manager who basically told me to be patient. I told her I wanted to come in and pay what I owed, but she said I couldn't because that would screw up the computer. She flat out refused to take my payment. Told me to be patient and "wait until the computer fixes itself." The next month I sent the money with an explanation that even though the bill didn't reflect it, I owed that amount. Because the computer was showing a zero balance, the store ended up crediting me the amount I sent in. I couldn't pay the damn bill no matter what.

It seems to me if you are in good faith attempting to pay for something and are being thwarted by the business you owed money to - which refuses to accept payment and in your case asks you to break the law and then gets the police involved - and the officer, using common sense, decides you attempted to pay but payment was refused, that should end the matter. If that business had no signs up specifiying which forms of US currency they would take, it shouldn't have mattered which bill you presented as long as it was legal tender.

[bleedingheart]

75. my mother got a $700 credit on her master card for no apparent reason

she called and called..telling them..."I didn't do anything to receive a credit...this is a mistake"

The bank ended up sending my mother a check for $700 (this was a bank issued credit card)...so she went to the bank and told them..
"this is not my money and I bet someone out there needs this $700"....

The first person to talk to her told her that she must have broken the law...and them my mother demanded a supervisor...to settle the issue.

Here she was trying to return the money and she was being "threatened" because she was doing the right thing.

Eventually they figured out that it was a credit to another person's account for a returned travel purchase...and it got credited to my mother's account instead.

[Toasterlad]

61. Um...Oil Companies Have Been Stealing from Us for Over Two Years Now

I wouldn't call what the OP did stealing: I'd call it getting some of my money back.

And before you chime in that the local gas stations are just as much under the thumb of the oil companies as we are, I submit to you that they're doing just fine, and that $28 isn't going to hurt them one bit.

[Wiccan Warrior]

62. Gee I think after that they filed Chapter 11 . I brought them down WOOHOO !!

:sarcasm: =)

[Lost4words]

64. Hello? Over Two Years? Hello?

[OnyxCollie]

89. Local gas stations are doing fine, huh?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/10/NEVIUS.TMP&tpe=printable

Talking out of your ass again.

[Toasterlad]

162. Funny How All the Other Stations Seem to Pay Their Bills Just Fine.

Haven't seen any stations closing down around my way, nor any $4 per gallon prices (thank God!). You'd think if this was such a wide-spread problem, the San Francisco Chronicle could find other examples besides one man's strange attempt at "waking people up". Curious.

But thanks for your interest.

[OnyxCollie]

204. I've seen three close where I live.

But I suppose empirical evidence is harder to see for those who are oblivious.

[bleedingheart]

70. Apparently the cashier didn't have change?

Jesus..you made a $28 purchase and a $50 was appropriate....and you should have gotten $22 back in change...now call me stupid but I think the cashier is a moron.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

78. please see post #74

the cashier is likely NOT a moron and simply dealing with 'drawer management' (as my boss liked to call it). Even $22 in change can cause problems in some situations. It would have caused me a headache working the 'graveyard shift' in my old convenience store job.

sP

[bleedingheart]

85. I worked in a convenience store years ago

but we accepted $50's...hell we sold lottery tickets so the drawers were always flush with cash that we had to keep dropping in the safe.

If the OP was buying gum with a $50...I can see the fuss. But making $22 of change isn't that steep.

Hell the same cashier would have made change for a dollar's worth of gum if paid with a $20...so that is why I think in this case it is foolish to make a fuss about paying for gas with a $50..especially when it was not posted that the store would not accept denominations higher than $50.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

92. while I agree with the arguments

we were told to never keep more than 30 in the drawer (and they did spot checks). Any $20 we got was to go immediately into the safe. I worked in a 'not so good' part of town and the only time I ever got robbed it was for about $27...and the sad part was that I saw that guy on a daily basis...

sP

[bleedingheart]

87. I also want to add...that if they didn't accept $50's at all what about

someone who makes a gas purchase that is over $50...which is very likely today...

Could they not pay with that $50 plus perhaps a $10 bill? If their policy is no $50's...then it would make that purchase a nightmare as well.

[Wiccan Warrior]

98. Oh you got to that I see lol... n/t

[Atman]

76. Karma-wise, you should go back and pay for the gas.

Just because you walked on a dubiously legal technicality doesn't make it right.

Go back and pay for the gas. Just make sure the same clerk is working when you pay, and make sure she remembers you.

.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

79. agreed n/t

[Squatch]

80. You moved your post just as I replied

I meant to say "thank you"

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atman]

108. Trumad, your post is way off-based

I don't think the guy you're telling to fuck off is in disagreement with you.

.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Squatch]

109. LOL.

Top 'o the mornin' to ya, too, friend! :thumbsup:

When you're ready to join the conversation, please jump right in.

[Wiccan Warrior]

86. I feel it's Karma of the Gas company

I consider it a thank you for spending 55$ in gas every 2 weeks with us =)

[Atman]

90. What about the local retailer? What did he do to you?

And what about every other corporation you feel is evil? You should dig shopping at Wal Mart and Target then...you can just steal everything and rationalize the shit out of doing so! BRILLIANT!

.

[Wiccan Warrior]

99. LOL I didn't steal At man

[Atman]

104. Have you returned to the store to pay for it? You have the money.

You have the store's product. You have the means to pay. You haven't paid. Call it what you will.

.

[sammythecat]

121. The "gas company" isn't out a penny.

The store owner is out the 20 some dollars for the gas in your tank.

[Lost4words]

88. Lets see phony war by energy companies, or retailer error.

what the hell are you saying here?????

50 bucks in light of what is happening to our country, there is no GD karma. you supporters of the oil industry make me nutty.

Karma, thats what is told to the little people to keep them/us in line.

Why dont you and La Taz Hot get together and morn Tammy Fay Baker for chris sakes!

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lost4words]

95. If you live long enough, you too will know, good luck to you.

Meanwhile continue to serve well your corporate gods well. :hi: 8643

[Atman]

102. BWHAHAHA!

That's a good one! You clearly don't know me from Adam. I don't consider it "serving my corporate masters" to NOT STEAL. Remember, the OP was intending to pay for the gasoline. She had the means to do so. An hourly-wage employee with a very slim understanding of either the law or her own company's policies made a stupid decision. But the OP was still intending to pay. Why she should not do so now? Because I'm serving corporate masters?

Whacka whacka whacka :crazy:

.

[sammythecat]

120. Right

The OP had a thoroughly exasperating experience with an incompetent clerk. There's no doubt about that. The OP is owed an apology and, if I was the store owner, I would be inclined to let her have the gas free of charge for all the trouble.

However, if this experience had happened to me and I was telling the story to my children, I would end the story by telling them I contacted someone else at the store and offered to pay for the $28 of gas in my tank. That would be the lesson of the story.

Yes, I had an infuriating and time wasting experience with a clerk, but a third party, who was not present, probably paid somewhere around $25 for the gas and offered it for sale at $28. To feel justified in letting this person pay the bill for my gas would be petty and small, even though it might be legally correct.

Even though it wouldn't make any difference morally or ethically, I'll bet some here would feel a little less righteous if the store owner was a friend or neighbor rather than a stranger. It's dismaying to me that so many think this story is some kind of "victory".

[Atman]

125. It's the Monkeysphere, I'm tellin' ya!

Good point you raised. "If that person was a friend or neighbor..."

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

.

[sammythecat]

145. Seems to be exactly what's going on in this thread.

That was an enlightening, and somewhat depressing, read.

I've added the site to my favorites. Looks like a lot of good stuff there. Thanks.

[petronius]

215. Excellent summary! The OP may not be legally obligated to pay

for the gas, but the morally and ethically right thing to do would be to make another attempt next time she's at that store, or when the owner is available...

[wicket]

82. Ha ha - AWESOME!

Glad the cops did the right thing - and that you stood your ground :yourock:

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

101. There's something interesting on the front of the $50 bill

"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"



If they refuse to accept legal tender issued by the United States Government then you are not bound to pay ANYTHING. The policeman was correct.

[SoonerPride]

134. hmmm. wrong.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml


I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?



The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

[heart of darkness]

103. next time bring a bag of pennies

$50 is too big a bill?..try making the person jockeying the register count out 2800 pennies for gas. they love that :)

[Freddie Stubbs]

107. Here in South Florida no gas stations let you pump gas without paying first

[blockhead]

232. 43 years in North Dakota

and I don't think I've ever seen a gas station here where you had to pay first. Must be more honest folk up here.:shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

110. I Agree With Your Taking A Stand, But The Cop Was Wrong And You Still Owe A Debt.

The cop has no inherent authority to dismiss debt. Only courts can do that. Therefore, the cop's words/actions/directions all would be dismissed within court because he had no authority to issue them to begin with.

You also are not stealing, since there was genuine attempt at one time to pay. What we do have, is an outstanding debt that you hold and technically still owe the station. Since you have had ample time to break the 50 and present the required change, you should've done so by now.

I think the woman was a bit stupid and should've been more cooperative, but we do not know her reasons for refusing the 50. For all we know, it is strong station policy and her job would've been put at risk had she have accepted it. But things could've gone much better if there had been some kind mutual agreement between the two of you.

If anything, the cop should've taken your information/license plate etc, held onto it, and given you 24 hours to make good on the transaction. He could've then given the woman the instructions to call the PD if the payment hadn't been made in that time, and then action could be taken. He would retain the information, and would not give it to the woman. She would have to call to file the complaint. Then, if all parties were in agreement, it could've been settled amicably.

That wasn't the case, and now there is still an outstanding debt. If she takes it to court, you have almost my firm guarantee that you will lose and have to pay anyway, not to mention the addition of any court costs you'd incur if you hired a lawyer or money lost from taking off of work, if applicable.

The easiest thing to do at this point to put it behind everybody, is just to go back and pay the 28 bucks.

[John Q. Citizen]

128. ANd who will pay for the customers time/gas due to the fact the store failed to post their

payment policies?

This customer was forced to stay and wait for the police, even though the customer attempted to pay their debt in good faith.

If the customer has to pay for gas and milage + time to return to the store to pay for a debt that could have been settled on the spot, that would be even more tort.

The business declined to recieve payment. That is their right. I suggest the business invest in the proper signage to avoid this kind of problem in the future.

The fact that the business had no appropriate signage in place isn't the customers fault. And the customer shouldn't have to bear the costs in terms of time and effort for the failings of the business.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

132. Shit Happens.

But I can all but assure you that in a civil court, the OP would be required to either pay for the goods or give the equivalent amount of gas back. The OP still owes an outstanding debt to that station. There really is no way around that.

[John Q. Citizen]

138. Not since the station declined to recieve the payment.

In fact, when the court heard the policemen's testimony that there was no signage up as to payment policies, and that the clerk refused to accept payment in the form of a $50 bill, my guess is the court would tell the business, "You declined payment. You can't come back now and expect payment."

ANd then they might award the defendant court costs from the plaintiff.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

143. Think What You Want. I All But Guarantee You The Defendant Will Owe All Or Most Of The Transaction

in the end.

Mark my words.

[Wiccan Warrior]

157. She had the $$$ to make change she said so ok...GAWD

some here don't know how to read I tell ya....SHE SAID SHE HAD THE $$$ TO MAKE CHANGE, but didn't.... GAWD

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

161. That's Irrelevant, Really.

Like I said, there might be a broader station policy that dictates firmly not to accept the bills. Her job may have been at risk for all you know.

But I also did state that you were well within rights to stand your ground and object. But you did get the gas and you do owe the money for it. You both should've been able to come to a more amicable agreement without the use of the cops, but I'm aware things don't always work out so easily.

But the cop was wrong in letting you leave since he is of no jurisdiction to have done so. I disagree with those accusing you of stealing, but am positive that you do in fact have an outstanding debt to that station of which if brought to court you will be likely ordered to pay. Her refusal of the 50 does not constitute refusal to accept any or all payment. In other words, she never said "fine, don't worry about it then". Since she never entered into any verbal agreement to forgive the debt, erase the debt or give the understanding that the service no longer required payment, your debt is still then outstanding.

Don't blame me for this; it's just the way it is. Though I think she was overly rigid and should've been more cooperative, you probably could've been as well. A simple "I'm sorry, I don't feel comfortable leaving my license or driving without it, but if you'd like you can take down my name and license plate number. What time are you here until tonight? I'll go get this changed somewhere and you have my word I'll be back before ya go. But in the future, you really should put up signs as to your policy so that customers don't have to suffer this inconvenience in the future". That probalby would've been a better way to go. But no one's perfect and I don't really consider either of you to blame more than the other. I just think both of you should've been able to settle it like adults in a more adult manner. But in the absence of that, you did get the gas and you do still owe the money. Rather than being spiteful and making it go through the courts, you should probably just do the right thing and pay the damn woman the money. But do what ya do. But I bet you anything you'll lose in court if it gets there.

[Wiccan Warrior]

163. I don't owe cause I had to deal with her holier then hell

attitude and I'll be damned if I will give her the pleasure of getting my money, the company better hire better people.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

186. Your Dislike Of Her Attitude Does Not Free You Of Your Debt To Her. If This Goes To Court, You Will

probably lose. I think you had an absolute right to leave the station without having to leave her your license or pay on the spot, due to the conflicts. But I don't think for a second that your responsibility to pay for the goods delivered was erased, and I can't think of any small claims judge thinking so either. The fact is that you are acting like a spiteful child now by refusing to go back and give payment. Courts are not going to be too thrilled with your having made it go through the system while wasting everyone's time, rather than just having done the right thing and paid when convenient. Granted, the judge will probably admonish her as well for not having signs posted and creating the dilemma to begin with, but I'm sure the judge will also say that the error does not mean the gas becomes free. We'll see what happens; of course, but I'm fairly certain after this is all dragged out you will not only owe for the goods, but also for your lawyers if you get them and any time lost you acquire from having to take off of work.

I think you both needed to grow the hell up, to be honest with you.

[Wiccan Warrior]

188. Ok don't worry yourself about me ok =)

I am full aware of the Michigan Penal Code system and city laws if they want to sue me then they can go for it I will tie it up in court for months.....I don't care..

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

193. Personally, I Ain't Worried About Either Of Ya. If You Want To Drag It Out In Court,

waste your time, and have to spend far more money doing so than if you just drove down the road and paid for what you OWE, that's your prerogative. But it does make ya come off a tad childish and foolish, to be honest with ya.

[Wiccan Warrior]

194. Ok you have your opinion, but the majority here see it differently

and I will take the Majority of the votes thank you, Just being Democratic about it is all =)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

199. Let Me Know How It All Works Out For Ya In The End, Ok?

When it turns out you owe the money, it will be my hope that you and those that see it differently will have learned that OMC knows his shit. :hi:

I'll await that conclusion. :)

[LanternWaste]

216. Just a little head's up...

Just a little head's up--

Regardless of how trivial, banal, or mundane the topic, we have posters who are never, under any circumstances, ever wrong. And arguing or counter-posting with/to them is akin to continuously bashing your head against a brick wall. Entertaining for a while, but after that it gets... tiresome.


Don't sweat it too much-- but of the opportunity arises, allow the store the opportunity to take your payment again...


This coming from a guy who worked two years doing the graveyard shift at an all-night convenience store in the wrong part of town.

[Lost4words]

292. well I guess the OP will burn in hell for crossing the almighty corporation!

frankly I am more concerned about fascism and stolen elections.

[Kingshakabobo]

133. I agree with most of what you say........................

......except for your scenario of calling the police if the OP doesn't return to pay in 24 hours.

Once the policeman determined there was no intent to steal the merchandise, it became a civil matter. Once the OP leaves the station, the debt is to be collected by a civil court. Police don't enforce contracts or collect debts - any attempt to do so would open the police up to liability.

[mopinko]

112. not takin' $50s for gas? are you kidding?

man. they need to wake up and read their own pumps. $50 doesn't get you very far. my truck has a 40 gallon tank. guess how often i fill that up?

these guys piss me off with refusing u.s. legal tender. it should not be allowed, at all. at all.

[Atman]

126. It's only about not having large bills in the drawer, nothing more.

This is a safety policy of most small stores where only one employee (usually a low-wage part-timer) is running the place. Keep the barest minimum of cash in the drawer so that potential thieves will determine it's not worth the time to try to rob you.

The clerk in the op's story is a freakin' idiot. She has a cash drop safe right behind her. She could have broken the bill and dropped in the safe. The fact that she was an idiot doesn't absolve the op from her responsibility for the debt, though.

.

[pitohui]

130. it is not a safety policy, use a little common sense

some convenience stores get robbed several times a month, for a time i was aware of one being robbed on average three times a week

it is probably safer for the employee to be robbed once in a blue moon, than to be robbed as a matter of routine, as these smaller takes mean the armed robber fuckwits will run out of money for drugs sooner and be back to hold ups quicker

these policies are strictly about keeping the owners from losing more than a few dollars and to hell w. the safety of the employee or the convenience of the customer

[Wiccan Warrior]

158. P.S. I'm A MAN

[rucky]

114. Nice!

Don't listen to these bums. Gas is mucho expensive and too many customer service people are snotty nowadays.

We all deserve a break!

[Renew Deal]

116. That's awesome.

Great story.

[Evoman]

122. I still think you should pay, for moral reasons.

You got your gas, and the station should be compensated. That they presented you with a problem in the form of a dumbass cashier doesn't absolve you, morally, of paying your debts. Break the 50, and pay the station. You may not have to do it legally..I don't know. I don't think it matters.

[John Q. Citizen]

131. Is the business morally responible to compensate the customer for their time

and effort?

It was the business who failed to post the signage, and then attemped to enforce what amounted to a secret policy.

When the business (or their representitive) declined payment, that would seem to end any obligation on the customer. If the business got the money from the clerk, (out of the paycheck) they are not permitted to take the money from the customer too.

Was the cleck responsible for the proper signage being displayed? Doubtful. Possible but doubtful.

Certainly the customer wasn't responsible for the signage being displayed.

[Az]

144. Legally no (not sure). Morally the customer should pay

If the customer decided they did not want the stations product then they should have returned it. If incapable of doing so and released from legal bindings to do so I would suggest that they come back and pay it when it is convenient.

The customer did not earn that gas via the time spent there. The right thing to do is to pay the bill. Something is not right just because you can get away with it.

[Atman]

148. "Something is not right just because you can get away with it."

To heck with the Ten Commandments. Post THAT in every courthouse in the land!

.

[John Q. Citizen]

151. The business can get away without posting their payment policies? Why?

The business acted in bad faith. The customer acted in good faith.

When the business declined to accept payment, they voided any responsibility on the part of the customer to make payment. Both legally and morally.

If there is a moral (or legal obligation) then there should also be an obligation to pay interest on the debt.

If there is no moral or legal obligation then there is no interest obligation either.

Do you believe the business could morally charge interest on this debt? Since they declined to accept payment?

[Az]

156. Lets say you walk into a grocery store

You go to purchase a stick of gum. You only have a $50. The store refuses the $50. Do you get to keep the stick of gum?

As I understand it Legally the customer is off the hook. But morally speaking they are not entitled to the gas.

[Wiccan Warrior]

160. Tell that to Bu$h... n/t

[Buns_of_Fire]

124. Oh, heck, I'll settle this...

Send me the $50 bill. I'll send you the $22 difference, and next time I'm in the neighborhood, I'll drop by the Shell station and pay them the $28 and change. No problem.

No thanks are necessary. I do this as a public service. O8)

[madmom]

127. kinda different but still kinda the same, when my SO was younger

he had a debt from his first relationship that wasn't paid, they came after him, he not having a very good paying job at the time tried to make arrangements for weekly payments, they refused wanting it all. He went to a lawyer (family friend) lawyer said pay them $2.00 a week if they refuse it you can consider your debt paid in full. They refused it, he told them what lawyer said, they then accepted it.

[pitohui]

129. similar story but not as dramatic

in my husband's case it was a $100 bill and there was a sign, however, he was out in the country and had no other way to pay and the gas station was the only one for miles around -- this was going to a job site in a company vehicle

when the clerk refused the bill, my husband suggested that they call the police and get the matter cleared up, i guess the clerk realized then that he was being ridiculous and he did make change for the bill -- maybe he was afraid the cop would say the same as yours, give the man his damn gas and let him go! :-)

$50 is just not a big bill these days, hell, a hundred is not a big bill to pay for gas in a work truck

these old policies need to change, they are silly in the day of $3 gas

[RamboLiberal]

136. Bet when you posted this you thought it was a funny story

to share and it would not turn in to a DU brouhaha! :)

When gas is $3 the clerk was an idiot for not giving you $22 in change. Bet the policy is there either cause they are afraid of getting stiffed with a counterfeit bill or lack of change. Since they refused to take legal tender I think you're under no obligation to pay. In fact if you do as some DU'ers suggest and go back and pay you might just get the clerk fired if you talk to a manager. And what if this station was out-of-your way. Would DU'ers expect you to drive back hundreds of miles to pay?

I say enjoy your free gas - that business won't suffer for the loss of money through a clerk's stupidity. And gas stations better rethink their policies in the days of $3 gas and near $50 or even over gas tank fills.

[sammythecat]

147. You say

"...that business won't suffer for the loss of money".

How do you know that?

[RamboLiberal]

255. Not worth my time to spend any more time on the moralizers

on this thread! Bet they lose more than that in drive-offs!

[Wiccan Warrior]

154. You have that right... n/t

[Joe Fields]

141. I love that story. I don't care what the law does or doesn't say.

For a trooper to do that for you was pretty cool.

[sammythecat]

150. If this was your father's gas station

would you still love this story and think it was pretty cool that he was out some money because of a clerk's stupidity?

[pitohui]

152. i sure would

but my father is not a fuckwit and would want to be aware of the clerk's assholery, so that he could fire the obstructionist clerk and hire someone who was more into customer service instead of petty throwing around of the weight


businesses need to have enough $$ on hand to make change, period

[sammythecat]

165. You said, "i sure would..."

and then proceeded to qualify your statement. I don't care if your father is a fuckwit. That wasn't my point.

To be pleased with oneself for having gotten something for nothing, and leaving someone else to pay the bill, because of the error of a blockheaded $6.50/hr store clerk strikes me as something less than fair or noble behavior. And I suppose if the next time the OP drove by the store it would be a defeat if she stopped and gave the store owner a twenty to cover the cost of the gas. That would be "wussing out" wouldn't it? Despite the hassle and inconvenience, some of us would do just that because it would seem to be the right thing to do. Sadly, you and too many others here think that would just be foolish and unnecessary. Perhaps even shamefully so.

This pros and cons of this topic have been pretty well exhausted in this thread. I'm not going to repeat anymore what has already been said. Your tone and your words tell me that would be futile.

[Wiccan Warrior]

166. ONCE AGAIN READ A BIT WILL YA I'M A MAN...

[sammythecat]

169. It was one or the other I guess

OK.

I was wrong.

You're a man.

Act like one and drop off a twenty the next time you go by the store.

[Wiccan Warrior]

170. No I'll act like one and keep the $$ for putting up with a rude employee thank you =)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

174. being a man...to you...

entails punishing a minimum wage worker for enforcing a policy she didn't set to keep a job she probably can't afford to be without? interesting view of manhood you have there.

sP

[Wiccan Warrior]

175. Doesn't give her the right to be rude either about it

and wanting me to illegally drive....no I really don't care about it ok... she treated me like dirt then the MSP had to take time to come out when they could have been doing better things if it is so imperative for them to get their $$$ SUE ME I would like to see them try...

[ProdigalJunkMail]

180. once again...

she is likely a minimum wage worker at 11:55 PM at a convenience store...there is nothing in the OP about her being rude (though she may have been). She doesn't get to make a decision about enforcing a policy. What she could have done is just said I cannot accept that and been very truthful about it. Holding a DL in lieu of payment for a short time might not be an unusual thing for that store (I did it a couple of times when people came up short and had to run to an ATM a couple of blocks away...any cop would certainly understand that if you got pulled for something). I know it is an inconvenience for you to go somewhere and break it, but she was just doing a job. And if she was a little surly at midnight on a dangerous job/shift then so be it.

Give her a break and do the right thing...not repay her with 'serves her right.'

sP

[Wiccan Warrior]

182. Not in Michigan fella if I didn't have it and got pulled over

It is a felony to give someone your ID even in that case around here where I live and that would mean I willingly chose to drive Illegally great thanks LOL.

[pitohui]

227. the wiccan warrior is correct on this one, come on, people, what's the problem here?

this min. wage employee you all are feeling so sorry for probably makes a nice side income from getting people's private information and selling it while thoughtfully holding onto their driver's licenses

the clerk tried to pull something illegal, probably for a nefarious purpose if we're real about it

the cop made the ruling and wiccan warrior abided by it

as far as i'm concerned 1) the ruling was correct, and 2) wiccan warrior did the right thing

i can't believe there is so much hoo ha on the side of a scammer trying to be alone w. the poster's driver license, crap, are people really this out of touch with reality? it's 2007 people

yea, sometimes scammers get burned themselves, who the fuck cares, trying crap like that does need to carry some risk of loss

[sammythecat]

176. Yes, that is indeed manly behavior.

I'm impressed.

Quite a victory there.

[Wiccan Warrior]

177. Thank you =)

[Wiccan Warrior]

155. $28 WOW I Bankrupt a Shell station over $28 WOOHOO GO ME...n/t

[Az]

167. What you do to others will come back to you threefold

Just saying. :D

[Wiccan Warrior]

168. thank you this MAN appreciates it I understand the three fold

again thank you...

[sammythecat]

171. We don't know the circumstances of the store owner.

If it seems such a trifling amount to you, why don't you drop off a twenty next time you're in the neighborhood?

[Wiccan Warrior]

172. LOL not on your life I had to put up with a rude employee then that's payment for me. n/t

POOR SHELL gas they are so deprived of money...............not.

[sammythecat]

179. Shell oil is not going to be out one penny.

The store/franchise owner is going to pay for your gas.

So you win.

Congratulations! You should be proud of yourself. Although I'm sure you hardly need me to tell you that.

[Wiccan Warrior]

181. Again thank you...n/t

[sammythecat]

185. No problem,

and by the way, sometime you should look up the word "petty" and get someone to explain the term "small-minded" to you. Self-examination and discovery is a good thing.

[jberryhill]

251. It came out of the clerk, when the till didn't balance

Have you ever worked a cash register?

[Richard Steele]

164. My dad isn't stupid enough to turn down cash when someone hands it to him, since you ask. nm

[sammythecat]

183. I'm sure he's not.

Is he big enough to reimburse the store owner the next time he's by the store despite the aggravating experience he had with the store clerk?

[OzarkDem]

195. I would say its his own fault

for having the stupid policy and that when you restrict how customers can pay for their gas you'd better be prepared to take a hit now and then when something like this happens.

Cost of doing business. Believe me, corporations don't hesitate to deal with each other this way.

[sammythecat]

219. Yes, it would be his own fault.

He is responible for his employees. Even if they are a buffoon, as this one apparently is. The whole thing was a mistake and legally the owner would be responsible.

All I and others have been saying is that it would have been "big" of the OP to consider the unfortunate episode with the clerk as "one of those things" and then drop off a twenty the next time he was by the store. Solon got it right in post #178. The OP, and others here, don't see it that way.

[Joe Fields]

235. yep.

[Perky]

153. I hope you ultimately paid for the gas

I mean sign or not....its the right thing to do.

[Wiccan Warrior]

159. Some DUers can't read I take it I'm a man if you took the time to look

at my profile before throwing Gender around Geeeze....Little effort there I know you can do it.....come on....

[KansDem]

173. I had a similar experience, albeit it didn't end as satisfactorily as yours.

I posted this a couple months ago on a thread about healthcare, but it's also pertinent with your topic:

Four years ago I suffered a heart attack and was diagnosed with diabetes. I spent a week in the hospital and 4 weeks off work (no pay), then worked a couple months at half-time. Well, I went in for a six-month checkup. The appointment was for 8:45 am. I had a $100 bill with me (I had taken out a few $100 bills the day before as I like to go around to pay stations to pay utility bills, insurance bills, etc.). The receptionist asked for my co-pay ($15) and I gave her the bill. She said they couldn't break it and I would have to either go to my bank or the grocery store across the street to make change. I said I didn't want to have to do that as I would miss my appointment. She said I needed to give her a co-pay. I asked if the office could just bill me. She said no, she needed the co-pay at that time. I said I have the co-pay in my hand, but she won't break the bill. She said they didn't have enough cash in the till. I said I found that hilarious coming from the industry that brought us the $5 aspirin tablet. We went back and forth but she still wouldn't let me see my doctor! I told her that they should have a sign displayed like Baskin-Robbins ice cream parlors that read, "We cannot accept bills larger than $20". I went home fuming and called the office to speak with the office manager. He called back a few minutes later and explained that I couldn't see my doctor because I didn't have my co-pay with me. I said I did have my co-pay and they wouldn't accept it. He said they didn't have enough cash in the till to do so. I said that wasn't my problem, and that they should have billed me. He said they tried that in the past when people didn't have their co-pay and they wound up not paying anyway. I reminded him that I did have my co-pay--in cash, it's just that they wouldn't accept it. We went back and forth with no resolution. I again explained the Baskin-Robbins policy to him with no results. After we hung up, my doctor called to explain the situation. He seemed to sympathize with me and explained he was just kind of "independent contractor," and that the policies of the front desk are set by the corporation that owns the office. I told him next time I'll bring exact change.

Anyway, I didn't get to see my doctor and had to make another appointment. I brought exact change, mostly nickels, dimes, and quarters.

Glad to read that you prevailed! Leave it to the gasoline companies to charge you more and more for their product or service, then refuse to accept large bills to pay for that product or service. A $50 bill to cover $28 in product? She couldn't have just given you two ones, a ten and a twenty? Something's wrong here...

[Karenina]

191. Yes, the change would be 2 ones and a twenty

OR 2 tens. Put the 50 in the lockdown and call it a day.

This thread is such an incredible display of Ami "ethics!" It has kept me entertained ALL DAY. The admonitions of mrbythebookmachomilitary and the cosmickarmatwinkies are ALL GEMS in their attempts to goad the OP into guilt for not bowing down to THEIR ideals. No wonder your "democracy" is sliding down the tubes. 200 posts about a goofy situation and not nearly as much attention paid to the JACKBOOT coming down on your heads. :rofl:

VIEL GLÜCK!!!

[KansDem]

205. Oops! Yes, two tens OR a twenty...

:blush:

But who knows, the clerk might have just gotten screamed at by the boss for accepting a large bill and was afraid, no matter how reasonable, to accommodate the OP.

Too often, we are intimidated into accepting illogical and unreasonable limits to our problem-solving abilities by micromanagers...

I remember once I filled up at a gas station, only to have the pump continue pumping after my tank was full. It wouldn't shut off, which it was suppose to do automatically when my tank was full, and dumped a considerable amount of gasoline on the ground (that little lever-lock was supposed to spring to "off" when it sensed the tank was full--but it didn't; dumping a couple of gallons of gas on the pavement which I had to pay for).

I asked for the owner's name and contact information so I could log a complaint, but the clerk (sitting behind bullet-proof glass and talking through a little window), told me it was against company policy to give out that information. She was rather rude about it, too.

Talk about protecting one's self!

[Solon]

178. I think its because you have Wicca in your username...

Yes, male Wiccans exist people! Oh, by the way, Blessed Be and I found the story funny, a similar thing happened to me back when I was 17. I just cashed a paycheck and was paying for gas at a station here in Missouri, without one of those signs notifying you of that they don't accept 50s or 100s. Anyway, all I had was a couple of hundreds and a fifty, my job sucked. :)

So I go in to pay with the smallest bill I had, a fifty, the gas was around 20 bucks, ah the good ole days! The clerk refused the money, and said she would take my ID and let me go to get change. Being stupid I did just that, and I ended up getting pulled over on my way back to my parent's house to get the change. I explained to the cop why I didn't have my driver's license, he said that was illegal, and I ended up taking a ride back to the station in the back of his cop car, at least I wasn't handcuffed. :)

We both walk in, and he started screaming at the clerk for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor", he then said he didn't see a damned sign for not accepting 50s, accept it now or forget about it. The clerk, being shaken, still refused my 50, the cop then gave me back my ID, and then told me to use the fifty to fix my damned taillight(the reason I was pulled over) and not worry about the gas bill.

I still felt guilty about not paying the gas, so after the cop left, I drove to my parent's house and got change, then went back to the gas station, the store owner showed up by then, I think the clerk called him, and when I explained I came back to pay, he refused, saying don't worry about it. Never heard about it again.

[Atman]

184. It was the Wicca part, I admit.

My daughter-in-law is Wiccan, as are several of her friends. My son is not. The only Wiccans I know are female, and being a female-based form of spirituality, I just made a "natural" assumption. No harm no foul. No offense was intended. It just gets cumbersome to have to type he/she and the derivatives while trying to post. I don't honestly see that it changes much in regards to this story, though. Although, if you WERE a female, and had big breasts and a low-cut blouse I'd bet you'd have been able to walk away without paying a penny either way.

.

.

[Solon]

187. As I said, I tried to pay, twice, the second time with exact change, and they still said no.

In a case like that, I don't see what my moral obligation is, to sue them for not accepting my money?

[Atman]

192. If you tried to pay with exact change, then you're off the hook AFAIC

Really. I didn't see that part in the earlier posts. If you really tried to pay with exact change and the clerk STILL said no, then walk. But I'll be honest with you...something sounds fishy here. Why on earth would the clerk not accept exact change?

.

[Solon]

198. If you read my story, its wasn't the clerk, it was the store owner who refused the second payment...

This was AFTER the cop escorted me to the clerk and basically threatened the clerk with arrest. The clerk was shaken up, and called the owner, who was there when I came back on my own.

[sammythecat]

189. Good for you!

You did the right thing and the store owner did the right thing as well.

Yours is a much more gratifying story than the OP. Some here don't see it that way, and, for the life of me, I don't understand the blindness. Especially here on DU. Some of the opinions expressed here on this matter are extremely disappointing.

[Wiccan Warrior]

190. Yeah I know it is saddening isn't it.... n/t

[sammythecat]

196. It is. It really is.

For some of us. For you, I imagine it is a much needed boost to your ego.

If you were the store owner, and this episode happened with a clerk you hired and 2 days later the other party stopped by to give you a twenty to cover the cost of the gas, you'd take it wouldn't you. Actually, I expect you'd then demand the full $28. The story related by Solon (#178) makes no sense at all to you, does it?

[Solon]

201. I think the store owner was afraid of legal problems if they accepted my money...

The gas station in question was called a "Police Stopover" or something, i.e. cops show up there all the time, they get free coffee, hell, I got free coffee when I showed up as a security guard on the way to work years later. :) This isn't a small town or anything, but this was one of the "regular" cops who shows up at this station all the time, and the cops in question, provide a sort of protection to the station as well.

[Az]

203. Thats the way I would have handled it.

A lack of a sign does not entitle you to a free tank of gas. It may legally allow you to drive away in the situation. But that gas is unearned. That is my sense of morality. It need not be another's.

[depakid]

200. The moralizers on these threads never fail to amaze me

Sound to me like the facts were that:

1. An offer was made to sell gas at a given price;

2. No indication that legal tender of any type would not be accepted (you could have offered penny's if you wished);

3. In reliance on seller's good faith, filled your tank and proffered payment in the customary manner;

4. The seller declined to take your money- AND then tried to confiscate personal property as collateral (unilaterally changing the terms of the deal, causing you to your legal detriment).

VERY simple facts that the usual moralizing suspects just can't wrap their minds around.

Now a simple solution would have been to accept an IOW and and promise to return the next day. Instead, the seller threatened (and basically detained) you.

That sort of the ALMOST ALWAYS falls under Deceptive Trade Practices Acts- and the consumer can usually get treble damages (at least) for these sorts of violations. My bet is that Michigan is no exception.

So, it seems to me, applying these facts to the law that a reasonable (and ethical) person would conclude that the seller got off easy!

[Atman]

202. "Moralizers"??!!

Moralizers? Paying for what you've purchased is just being moralistic? Jesus. Then you should never have to pay for ANYTHING, because all the corporations, suck, right? I mean, you can pay at Trader Joes, but when you go to Wal Mart you're free to walk with your items. Am I getting that right? Paying local merchants for their services is now just "moralizing?" Wow. Interesting world you live in.

.

[depakid]

206. Yep- moralizers that don't understand the law

yet try to toss their values around without any real understanding of how they apply- or why we have those laws in place.

It seems to me, people like that have caused a great deal of harm to this country- and continue to do so, sometimes by misinforming people about respective rights and duties that have been handed down to us over time.

In this situation, I can make a very strong case (as could the Michigan Attorney General) that not only is the owner behaving unconscionably and acting in bad faith- but their behavior constitutes a specific tort under well established law.

Which is why I said- under the circumstances here- the seller was fortunate to get off easy and not have to learn a more expensive lesson about what their duties are.

[sammythecat]

211. For chissake!

"...not only is the owner behaving unconscionably and acting in bad faith...". The owner wasn't there! He was probably home in bed!

Yes, the clerk was acting in his stead but were talking about a minimum wage store clerk and a situation involving $28! Maybe the OP should hire a team of lawyers sue the clerk AND the store owner for the embarrassment and anguish he had to undergo. Poor guy! Maybe they could just shut the place down so that this type of thing never again happens to anyone else.

Most of us "moralizers" aren't talking about the legality here. It's about the right and ethical way to behave. Just be a grown-up and see that the store-owner gets paid for the gas you got and chalk up the unpleasantness with the fearsome clerk to experience. Chances are, if he's a grown-up too, the store owner won't even want to take the money.

[jberryhill]

252. Then you apply MI Code 440.2311 here:

440.2311 Specification of performance; assortment and shipment of goods; remedies.

Sec. 2311.

(1) An agreement for sale which is otherwise sufficiently definite (subsection (3) of section 2204) to be a contract is not made invalid by the fact that it leaves particulars of performance to be specified by one of the parties. Any such specification must be made in good faith and within limits set by commercial reasonableness.

(2) Unless otherwise agreed specifications relating to assortment of the goods are at the buyer's option and except as otherwise provided in subsections (1)(c) and (3) of section 2319 specifications or arrangements relating to shipment are at the seller's option.

(3) Where such specification would materially affect the other party's performance but is not seasonably made or where one party's cooperation is necessary to the agreed performance of the other but is not seasonably forthcoming, the other party in addition to all other remedies

(a) is excused for any resulting delay in his own performance; and

(b) may also either proceed to perform in any reasonable manner or after the time for a material part of his own performance treat the failure to specify or to cooperate as a breach by failure to deliver or accept the goods.

Do tell us about "the law".

We have an unseasonably made, commercially reasonable, payment term. The buyer is excused for delay in performance.

By putting the gasoline in your tank, you are entering, by action, into a contract to pay for that gasoline. It is the customary mode of formation of a contract for the sale of gasoline, and payment is due on delivery.

Now here, there was a late payment term. It does not excuse the payment obligation, but it does excuse a reasonable delay in performance.

That's not morality. That's the black and white Uniform Commercial Code in the State of Michigan which applies to this commercial transaction.

[depakid]

276. Learn about law- basic stuff

Then apply the UCC.

and other things.

[datasuspect]

208. one man's theft is another man's "merchandise liberation"

perspective in everything.

[depakid]

210. Once again- a person who doesn't understand contract law

or tort law- trying to put their moralizing spin on things.

A basic business law class might be helpful- because if you think a business in a consumer situation can behave this way with impunity, you may have a big surprise in store down the road.

Now, if you don't like the statutes & regulations- or the common law, you can lobby to have them changed to suit what you think the proper perspective and/or "balance of power" should be.

The Chamber of Commerce does that all of the time....

[datasuspect]

212. you may have misunderstood me

i support "merchandise liberation" and causing economic damage to multinational corporations on principle.

[Name removed]

257. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[datasuspect]

285. yeah, oookay

thanks for your concern.

[Atman]

214. THIS ISN'T CONTRACT LAW!

As many other posters have stated in this thread, being LEGALLY right and MORALLY right are not necessarily the same thing. You want to base it ALL on "legally" right.

I don't. Nor do many others here. If you get off on screwing people out of what is rightfully theirs (in this case, the money due them for their wares/services) because you found a technical loophole, goody for you.

Sleep well.

.

[depakid]

220. "You want to base it ALL on "legally" right."

I do indeed- it's called the rule of law.... I still believe in that (unlike others here)- and what's more, I understand why it's important in the scheme of things.

Moreover, if you took the time to really think about it, you'd see that legally and morally right dovetails in this case.

btw: a large element in this case sure as hell IS basic contract law!

[Atman]

230. I simply believe you're wrong.

You seem to have deliberately ignored my point so you could promote your "contract law" angle again. I never denied that LEGALLY you might be correct. Not RIGHT, just correct. Being correct doesn't make you RIGHT.

Are you one of those people who looks for things to trip over at the Home Depot just so you can threaten to sue them? Those people are LEGALLY right. But they have the morals of gutter slime. Where do you stand?

Ooh. I think I already know.

.

[depakid]

233. You "simply believe"

and thein lies the problem.

Rules of law have been passed down to us for many generations- and if you have a look at them (and the cases) if you garner the courage to consider why they came into being over all the years- you might frame things a bit differently.

Worth a try?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

288. are you being purposely obtuse

or do you just not get it?

sP

[sammythecat]

207. The law may very well be on the side of the OP,

and I'm assuming that it IS on his side.

The fact is, it seems to me, a "bigger" person would have chalked up the unreasonable behavior of the minimum wage clerk as a very frustrating inconvenience, and a good story, and then later drop of a twenty for the store owner to cover the expense of the gas. Is there something wrong with this scenario. Is it not just the right and mature thing to do?

Read #178. Solon got it right. He has a good story AND did the right thing even though the law didn't require it. The world would be a much better place to live if more had his attitude rather than that of the OP.

[depakid]

217. The law is on the OP's side- for good reason

and I also agree that the world (as well as individuals and business) acted reasonably when petty disputes like this come up.

Now, the trouble in consumer situations is that large volume businesses don't always have enough incentive to "do the right thing." One customer doesn't mean that much to them (particularly say- with a commodity like retail gasoline).

So the law adds incentives on- and hard noses will have examples made of them, and word gets out.

Sometimes that results in what the "moralizers" see as an undue boon to the consumer- and (failing to consider the larger picture) that hacks them off- though my guess is that majority would side with the OP were the tables turned on them personally

What we have here is no different than the seller increasing the "price" arbitrarily after the gas is in the tank- and then threatening the consumer when they don't pay up. As Solon's post pointed out- there's a CLEAR legal detriment to the consumer if they followed the seller's demand.

Would anyone be taking the side of the merchant if tried to raise his price after the goods had effectively been consumed? Mr. Jones- that dinner will now cost you $16 instead on $15 (and maybe more).

The cop in both cases understood this, and would that there were more like him. That would be in everyone's best interests (even if some still refuse to see it).

[sammythecat]

228. You make "moralizer" sound dirty.

I'm a moralizer and proud of it. Or at least glad I'm not in the opposition.

I haven't posted here in some time and now I remember why. It's pointless to agree with everyone and futile to disagree.

I don't know if it's fatigue or just that I'm hopelessly outclassed by your argument, but you have lost me. We're talking about a late nite convenience store clerk and a poster that's tickled pink they got half a tank of gas and don't have to pay for it.

The OP does not have to pay for the gas. I get that. Somebody else will pay for the gas.

In a better world the OP would have stopped by the station and offered to pay the owner for the gas they got the other night. Chances are very good that the owner would first offer an apology and then at least give a discount on the gas if he didn't just refuse payment altogether. In my moralistic, twisted version of the world this is how I'd expect everyone over the age of 14 to behave in a situation like this. As a non-moralizer, you can well imagine the mess we'd all be in if everyone behaved this way.

[Atman]

231. You make lots of wrong assumptions.

You may not be among us, but lots of posters here -- me among them -- don't steal. I've actually walked back into stores to pay them for items they've forgotten to charge me for (left on the bottom of the cart, etc). Do you? Or do you just feel "it's their problem if they didn't catch me?"

You have rights as a consumer. You also have obligations as a decent human being.

.

[depakid]

236. All I did was look at facts

and apply law and analysis.

Take the facts and run with them- do some research and tell us something. Prove your points. You're good enough to do more.

[Atman]

243. I know that's all you did. That's my point!

You just looked at the legal facts. That's what I said...you looked at the legal angles, absent the moral side of the coin.

You're talking about the legal facts, I'm talking about the moral rights and wrongs. What exactly do you wish that I "prove?"

.

[depakid]

266. How about ya look at the inteface then

Might be a place to start.....

[jberryhill]

253. What Law Did You Apply?

Because you just flunked contracts.

No, the station cannot change the price from that posted. The gas was delivered, and payment was due on delivery. What we have here is a contract. The problem that arose was a payment TERM that was not expressed up front.

Michigan Statute 440.2311 governs. An unseasonably made, yet commercially reasonable, payment term which causes a delay in performance by the buyer will excuse the buyer for a DELAY in performance caused by the unseasonably made term. It does not excuse the buyer from the debt.

You didn't apply any "law" to these facts.

[depakid]

267. I guess you don't know too much

Have a look at the statute that I referenced- it's there all right, for the seeing.

Your whole performance bullshit is just laughable. I'm sorry but it is. LOL.

I really don't know what to do other than to laugh- or see you in court.

What a "new Democrat."

This kind of crap is why you all lose so many votes- and will continue to.

[jberryhill]

271. What statute did you reference?

I just looked through every one of your posts in the thread, and I don't see a single citation.

So, I guess my eyesight is bad, what was the citation?

The only thing you mentioned was an unspecified "deceptive trade practice", and "a specific tort under well established law".

The notion that the OP was either deceived or suffered tortious injury are both absurd.

[depakid]

273. I reckon you can look it up

It's a variation of a uniform statute.

In Michigan that would be §445.901 et seq.

Michigan Consumer Protection Act.

Look it up.

(on edit- you can lobby with others here to try and change it).

[jberryhill]

277. There is no section in there which excuses payment for this tank of gas

The gasoline was of the type advertised, and offered for sale at the price marked on the pump.

What cracks me up here is that you think the Michigan Consumer Protection Act entitles the OP to a free tank of gas.

But your "look it up" comment indicates that you have no intention of citing the provision of the statute which you believe to be relevant.

I guess you're one of those "we don't need laws if we have strong opinions" folks then, yes?

[depakid]

278. Do you know how to read and apply a statute?

I reckon not- which is why (as I might have mentioned before) we're all in the sorry situation that we're in.

Al Gore wrote a book recently. It's called "The Assault on Reason." It might be worthwhile reading.

[jberryhill]

280. I've already read it

I've also been practicing law for quite some time. Perhaps you would like to support your argument by a specific application of some law to the facts.

But, since you don't feel like citing the "free gas" section of the statute here, this is clearly just a game.

[depakid]

281. I asked whether you could apply it

or any other statute.

I basically asked whether you think critically and abstractly.

Also, excuse me- did I hear you correctly? You practice law?

I don't think so- cause on the facts we have, this would pretty well be a slam dunk case.

[jberryhill]

282. Okay, no citation from you... good night

Also, excuse me- did I hear you correctly? You practice law?

I don't think so-

Well, the USPTO appears to disagree with you:

http://des.uspto.gov/OEDCI/details.do?regisNum=36452

I can reason well enough to see that you are not going to cite a relevant statute here and identify what part of it applies.

[depakid]

284. No legal analysis

nor any semblance of understanding.

How sad is that....

Just because people like David Brooks or Lou Dobbs get away with it in some places in America means you can, too?

That's what you're saying with that link isn't it?

I mean, really. It's a simple case. Makes one wonder what responses to bar exam questions look like these days.

[Atman]

287. Who is "you all," depakid?

"This kind of crap is why you all lose so many votes- and will continue to."

Do you need to see someone about that mole?

.

[sandnsea]

241. The right to pay for service

according to the stated conditions.

Otherwise you could have racist assholes making up all kinds of conditions just to antagonize someone into a fight. And much more.

Someone has the money to pay, you better take it. That's the law.

[depakid]

269. These folks- they'd put all kinds of secret conditions on things

that only THEY know about.

Then they'd enforce them with the power of state law.

[sandnsea]

239. Why consumers are fucked over daily

The stunning number of people who never believe that business deserves to lose money for unfair or illegal business practices. I don't get what has made so many people believe they deserve to be fucked.

[Atman]

244. The OP was getting fucked? How so?

The minimum-wage part-time employee was stupid. The OP had the money to pay, yet because of an ignorant employee he feels he shouldn't have to. Even though he had the money and intended to pay. I just don't see how this is in any way shape or form an issue of the customer "getting fucked."

.

[sandnsea]

247. By requiring him to go out of his way

for the benefit of some dumbass store owner who doesn't give a shit enough to train his employees?? Why the hell should he have to do that? If the store owner cares about getting paid, the store owner will conduct business legally. Otherwise, fuck him.

[depakid]

279. Forget the rule of law

These sorts of folks scare me almost as much- maybe more, than Republicans do.

All I can say is Wow.

[yardwork]

209. I don't know about the legalities, but I like that cop!

And as a fellow Pagan, I'm glad that the cop sided with common law! :thumbsup:

And, if I were that clerk, I would have said something like this - "Hon, I can't take that $50 because it's dangerous for me to have large currency late at night. Tell you what. Why don't you write me an IOU and come back tomorrow to pay it? I trust you."

That way, the clerk would have stayed safe and not lost a customer and not gotten in trouble with the law.

[bigwillq]

225. Hey! Congrats on 300 posts!

:toast:

That's all I can add to this thread....who would've thunk that this thread would get this out of control. Only on DU!

:hi:

[AngryOldDem]

246. Amazing, isn't it?

Still going strong, but it's been one of the more entertaining threads on GD.

[tritsofme]

229. The attitude of the OP resembles my 7 year old niece

Its really an unbelievable display.

[Codeine]

258. Except your niece

will grow out of it. ;-)

[flying rabbit]

234. Human observation laboratory.

Good stuff!:popcorn:

[cynatnite]

242. The owner may have made the clerk pay for your gas...

With the cop there I would have said that I would return with the correct amount of money. Yeah, the clerk was in the wrong, but it's no excuse, IMO, to be happy about getting a tank of gas you know you should have paid for.

I'm of the mind that as human beings it's our responsibility to always act in good faith. Pay for what you get and not to use the law in order to get a free ride.

Just because the clerk was wrong doesn't entitle you to a free tank of gas by default.

Around here, the clerks are responsible for any stolen gas. It comes straight out of their checks if someone steals it.

[Wiccan Warrior]

245. WOW I love this Ignore feature it's great

I'm at 10 so far WOOHOOOOOOO =)

[Moochy]

272. 210 here

And so many new 'friends' on this thread alone, you gas thief you!!!

[ComerPerro]

260. get a police report, just in case

[piedmont]

274. They might as well have demanded to be paid in Twinkies.

It's the gas station's fault-- they didn't warn the customer ahead of time that they don't take all reasonable forms of U.S. currency. Now if they had offered to siphon the exact amount of gas back out of the car, that might have been a reasonable solution.

[Wiccan Warrior]

275. Twinkies huh? hmmmmm damn now I'm hungry grrrrrrrrrrrrr.....n/t

[datasuspect]

286. what about the theft of your time?

i think the gas station owes you for the precious time taken from your life as the result of their idiocy.

it's only right that they pay you for this.

the one thing i learned from this thread is that there are lots of people who index very highly on compliance with authority scales.

[Glenda]

289. very interesting point, datasuspect

"the one thing i learned from this thread is that there are lots of people who index very highly on compliance with authority scales."

:toast:

surprising...

[datasuspect]

290. well, you have to consider the average person never questions anything they are taught

and they never go beyond their comfort zones.

and you cannot blame them. we were programmed for this ever since the day we all set foot in a classroom, a church, or the workforce.

[Wiccan Warrior]

291. One thing I learned from this thread is.....

1.I can't believe that it went on this Long lol
2. There are only 3 maybe 4 in here that are trying to PUSH guilt down my throat well it isn't going to happen this is between my Gods and me these people in here are not my Judge nor my God so I really don't give a flying poop that's why DU created the IGNORE list =)

[Lost4words]

293. dont listen to these nut jobs, this thread should be called pick your Ignore

cause they all came out of the woodwork on this thread.

You have my support and admiration! :hi: 8643

[Atman]

294. IT'S ALIIIIIIIIIIVVVEE!

:rofl:

.