Pet Peeve - Paying by Card - 1c Difference

ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 11:01

Hi

So something my wife really gets annoyed about that I really didn't take any action

I know it's slightly unethical but not sure if it is contravening any laws under false advertising? Maybe?

So notice when paying by card, this happens with 98% of retailers

So example something advertised $9.99 but retailer charges $10.00

Sometimes/ rarely the retailer will charge the advertised price ($9.99) above as an example.

So what do you guys think? Does it bother you?

I know it's not much. But my wife is like " it's the principle"

Thanks

Financial

Comments

Search through all the comments in this post.
  • askbargain on 01/12/2025 - 11:02
    +17

    Chargeback

    • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 11:12

      I wonder has anyone done that for 1c? Hehe

      • jv on 01/12/2025 - 12:10
        -7

        The chargeback can only be for the full amount.

        • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 13:11

          Oh right thanks

        • askbargain on 01/12/2025 - 13:43
          +3

          No it doesn’t.

        • Trance N Dance on 04/12/2025 - 12:34

          Have done many partial charge backs with amex, including one for 1c because I'm petty like that.

          The 1c charge back was because they charged me 1c more than the agreed price and I wanted to slug them with a charge back fee.

          • jv on 04/12/2025 - 13:16

            @Trance N Dance:

            Have done many partial charge backs with amex

            They told me they can't, charged back the whole amount and said the merchant can re-charge the correct amount…

            Suited me fine..

    • Muppet Detector on 02/12/2025 - 02:57
      -1

      Chargeback

      May I ask on what grounds this transaction could be challenged via chargeback?

      I don't think that a chargeback is an available remedy to rescind a legally binding contract where no breach exists.

      Is there a suggestion that there is a question about the legality of the contract as explained by the OP?

      • dowhatuwant2 on 02/12/2025 - 17:05
        +8

        They overcharged him, they breached the contract from charging a different amount to that advertised.

        • Muppet Detector on 02/12/2025 - 22:22
          -3

          That's not how contracts work. They didn't overcharge. Advertisement has nothing to do with contract formation.

          https://www.australiancontractlaw.info/

          • dsar on 03/12/2025 - 01:00
            +1

            @Muppet Detector: You’re right that advertisements is technically an 'invitation to treat' under common contract law. However, the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) is statutory law and overrides this by placing specific obligations on businesses that exist outside of the contract. So even if assume there is no breach of contract law the seller is likely in breach of the ACL under Section 48 (The Single Price Rule

            Businesses must communicate clear and accurate prices prior to purchase. They must not mislead consumers about their prices.

            Or/and Section 18 regarding misleading or deceptive conduct.

            • Muppet Detector on 03/12/2025 - 18:18

              @dsar: That's not saying quite what you're suggesting. That's inline with concealing additional charges such as surcharges, not displacing the established laws of contract.

              This does not change the nature of the price advertised.

              It still stands that a displayed price is considered an advertisement/invitation to treat (excluding carbolic smokeball applications).

              Otherwise, a merchant would not be able to claim "whoops, I made a mistake, now I am going to withdraw it from sale".

              In this example, not subject to additional hidden charges (because these would actually be terms of the contract that the consumer is not made aware they are agreeing to when forming the contract - hence misleading & deceptive conduct etc).

              Also consider, single price rule compels you to include GST in advertised price. GST is not something which can ever be negotiated. It will always remain a percentage of the price that is agreed to.

              That single price rule isn't saying quite what you are suggesting.

              This example, displayed price one of the suggested terms capable of being negotiated as per rules applying to advertisements.

              Then as per contract formation rules

              Buyer makes offer (can be anything, even if lower than that in the advertisement) and so on.

              • dsar on 04/12/2025 - 00:19
                -3

                @Muppet Detector: have you tried putting your response into any AI system? Don't worry I"ll do it for you.

                This is a classic "law student vs. practicing lawyer" debate. Your opponent is stuck on Common Law 101 (contract formation), whereas you are arguing Statutory Law (consumer protection). In the real world of Australian retail, statutory law wins.

                The Response to Send
                This response pivots away from the abstract "contract" debate and hits them with the specific obligations of the ACL regarding multiple pricing.

                "You're conflating Contract Formation (Common Law) with Prohibited Conduct (Statutory Law).

                You are focusing on when the contract is formed (at the register), which is legally correct but practically irrelevant because the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) regulates the conduct before the contract is made.

                You mentioned Section 48 isn't what I'm suggesting—it actually is. Section 48 doesn't just cover 'drip pricing' or hidden taxes; it specifically covers Multiple Pricing.

                Under the ACL, if an item is displayed with two prices (e.g., $9.99 on the shelf and $10.00 at the register), the business has a statutory obligation to either:

                Sell it for the lower displayed price ($9.99), OR

                Withdraw the item from sale entirely until the price is corrected.

                They cannot simply say 'whoops' and then proceed to charge the higher price ($10) as a 'counter-offer.' That act itself would be a breach of the Single Price Rule provisions.

                Regarding GST: In Australia, the displayed price ($9.99) is required by law to be GST-inclusive. So the argument that GST is a 'non-negotiable extra' doesn't fly—it’s already inside the $9.99.

                So yes, while the advertisement is an invitation to treat, the discrepancy in price triggers a statutory breach unless they honor the lower price or refuse the sale. They can't just charge the higher amount."

                • Muppet Detector on 04/12/2025 - 02:36

                  @dsar: Thanks for taking the time to do that and I do agree a lot of the content, but it hasn't actually addressed the situation the OP has described and it's out of context hence not actually saying what you're suggesting. What you said was true, just not the situation described in this thread or to what I was responding.

                  You mentioned Section 48 isn't what I'm suggesting—it actually is. Section 48 doesn't just cover 'drip pricing' or hidden taxes; it specifically covers Multiple Pricing.

                  Yes, but that isn't what the OP has described.

                  Under the ACL, if an item is displayed with two prices (e.g., $9.99 on the shelf and $10.00 at the register), the business has a statutory obligation to either:

                  Sell it for the lower displayed price ($9.99),

                  Sell it for the lower displayed price ($9.99), OR

                  Withdraw the item from sale entirely until the price is corrected.

                  They cannot simply say 'whoops' and then proceed to charge the higher price ($10) as a 'counter-offer.' That act itself would be a breach of the Single Price Rule provisions.

                  Yes, but this isn't what happened.

                  The merchant was never corrected. Nobody said, "hey, that's wrong, you said ""$9.99", so merchant never contemplated withdrawal from sale far less, "whoops".

                  Hence, buyer counter offer and seller accepted. Remember buyer was aware of the different price. He said he saw merchant enter the price into the machine (indicating no barcode so was merchant even selling the product he was selling at the different price? - see where that's going?)

                  Regarding GST: In Australia, the displayed price ($9.99) is required by law to be GST-inclusive. So the argument that GST is a 'non-negotiable extra' doesn't fly—it’s already inside the $9.99.

                  Yeah, wasn't meant to be an argument, more a FYI as I hadn't included GST for single price rule earlier as it wasn't top of mind, only mentioned the sneaky surcharges from the link with a mind to the drip pricing etc.

                  Can't remember why I thought it was necessary to point out you couldn't negotiate GST though as opposed to just acknowleding the advertised price is supposed to include GST, so they can't hit you with that after you've finished negotiating a price. The latter is actually what I thought I was addressing in contemplation of being corrected for not including it earlier in single price rule. Made sense to me others would connect those dots.

                  Sorry about that bit, I do acknowledge that was out of left field and my thought patterns unclear or even misleading.

                  So yes, while the advertisement is an invitation to treat, the discrepancy in price triggers a statutory breach unless they honor the lower price or refuse the sale. They can't just charge the higher amount."

                  I understand they can't, but it was never challenged despite buyer knowing price they agreed to was different to that advertised, so withdrawal from sale or correcting price was never in contemplation from either party.

                  If what you and the trusty AI says is true for this situation, explain how ACCC allows Woolworths et al to get away with their incorrect price policy.

                  Comparing that to the ruling where a merchant can't have a sign saying "no refunds" as ACCC says this is considered illegal as it is misleading to make buyer think they have no consumer guarantees. Must include in sign something like "does not remove any guarantees applicable under ACL"

                  If Woolworths scans a price different to what was displayed, their policy tells customer, we will honour one item at that price, but not any others (even if they were scanned too).

                  Using your yardstick, that too would be misleading conduct and illegal because WW would have to honour every incorrect price which they specifically say that they won't.

                • Muppet Detector on 04/12/2025 - 03:25

                  @dsar: ACL specifies seller must sell at price advertised, but it doesn't say that either party can't negotiate a different price or proceed with a different contract.

                  • dsar on 04/12/2025 - 16:38

                    @Muppet Detector: Your argument relies on the idea that because the buyer paid the $10, they accepted a 'counter-offer' and waived the error. This is incorrect under Consumer Law. You cannot 'contract out' of statutory obligations. Just because a consumer pays the higher price (often to avoid a scene) does not absolve the business of the breach of Section 48. The breach occurs the moment they fail to sell at the lower displayed price. The consumer's 'acceptance' at the till is irrelevant to the legality of the business's conduct.

                    You are still conflating Contract Law (the deal) with Consumer Law (the rules of the game).

                    1. Acceptance does not cure a breach You argue that because the buyer paid the $10, they accepted the 'counter-offer' and waived the issue. This is incorrect. You cannot 'contract out' of the ACL. Just as a buyer technically 'agrees' to a 'No Refunds' sign by purchasing the item, the sign itself remains illegal and unenforceable. Similarly, the fact that the buyer paid the $10 does not absolve the business of the Section 48 breach. The offence occurs the moment they fail to honor the lower displayed price.

                    2. You are factually wrong about Woolworths You claimed Woolworths charges the higher price on subsequent items. They do not. Under their policy (and the Scanning Code), the first item is free, and all subsequent items are sold at the lower shelf price. If they attempted to charge the higher scanning price for the subsequent items, they would be in direct breach of Section 48.

                    3. The 'Manual Entry' Irrelevance It doesn’t matter if the merchant manually entered the price or if it was a barcode error. If the displayed price is $9.99 and the register price is $10.00, Section 48 mandates the lower price. The merchant's internal error is not the consumer's problem, nor is it a valid basis for a 'counter-offer' under statutory law."

                    • Muppet Detector on 07/12/2025 - 12:16

                      @dsar: Never have I ever been asked to get legal guidance, including legislative interpretation from artificial intelligence.

                      Acts Interpretation Act, sure.

                      Not contracting out of statutory legislation.

                      Done here, not prepared to discuss anything with somebody who presents AI as fact and says "trust me bro".

                      At least I bothered to provide links to over 15 reputable sources to support what I have said.

                      You'd have more credibility if you used Wikipedia.

                      • dsar on 07/12/2025 - 12:44

                        @Muppet Detector: Hey mate, apologies for the before, rough day.

                        • Muppet Detector on 07/12/2025 - 13:03

                          @dsar: Did you read it?

                          1. Code
                          2. Policy
                          3. Inform them of mistake
                          4. Withdraw until incorrect price corrected.
                          5. It even says something about barcodes vs manual entry.

                          sigh

                          Yes, I accept I was wrong by stating the policy was:

                          WW would have to honour every incorrect price which they specifically say that they won't.

                          I didn't initially realise that you addressed that as I had disengaged the second time you got Siri to do your homework.

                          But this doesn't support your other interpretations either.

                          Your AI doesn't even explain to you what "you can't contract out of the law" means / how it applies.

                          Let me see, believe Professor Julie Clark (a recognised expert in Australia Contract Law & Australian Consumer Law, to whose website I even provided a link), Siri or dsar?

                          LOL, lock in Wikipedia, Eddie. At least the other dude (khan?) who argued about what a contract actually is, attempted to do his own research/homework, even if that was wrong too.

                          (Tbf, Was surprised that Webster dictionary was so wrong, but then maybe that's why Acts Interpretation Act doesn't list that as one to which to refer).

                          • dsar on 07/12/2025 - 16:40

                            @Muppet Detector: Firstly, I apologise for my unwarranted and unjustified snarkiness with the AI response.

                            Sorry about that, my bad.

                            After re-reading your comments a few times, I believe the core essence of what you're saying is that a breach in ACL doesn't affect the laws of contract.

                            Assuming that is your position (which is unfortunate for my ego as you mentioned this few times which I missed), I agree with you and is supported from the quote below from the textbook I have at hand in Chapter 6, Contracts: Concept of Agreement, pg 194.

                            However, the effect of the consumer protection provisions of the Australian Consumer Law must be considered. This legislation does not affect the contractual status of the aborted transaction but provides both civil actions and criminal penalties for multiple pricing (where goods are not sold for the lowest displayed price: ss 47, 165); “false or mis-leading representations with respect to the price of goods or services” (ss 29(1)(i), 151); and bait advertising (ss 35, 157). Damages are also available to those who can satisfy the court that they have suffered loss or damage through their reliance on the misleading conduct.

                            Now, just to be clear on my stance on things (correct me if I'm wrong in regards to my assumption on our agreed stances)

                            Positions that we've both shared and agreed upon previously

                            • Advertising is ITT

                            My positions on things I didn't mention previously but you have that I think we agree upon:

                            • Contract made when buyer pays at checkout
                            • In response to askbargain comment on 'chargeback', I don't think OP has any right to do a charge back in relation to a breach of contract

                            New positions I've gained that I think we agree upon:

                            • Breach of ACL does not impact law of K

                            Things I've shared but I don't know your position on (not of any fault of your own, since it isn't related to the essence of contract law vs ACL, again my fatal flaw):

                            • Did the seller breach ACL? | My view, yes as mentioned previously but I'll add more detail to justify my position as the price at checkout does not match the displayed price which may be argued as breach since It's illegal for businesses to make false or misleading claims about prices and I believe the quote from the textbook supports this as well. Yes I know it's 1c which I'm not sure a reasonable person would have an opinion of damages but for argument sake, may we view this as $1000 so we don't have to talk about it)
                            • Even though no breach of contracts happened, does OP have any right to get that 1c back? | My view, yes, due to breach of ACL. If you don't believe there there was a breach of ACL, I would like to know your thoughts if we assumed there was a breach of ACL but no breach in contract.
                            • Does OP anyone have a leg to stand on in doing any chargeback in relation to a breach of ACL explicitly around prices? | My view is yes but I don't know too much about chargebacks.
      • MrTweek on 02/12/2025 - 18:03
        +3

        If the invoice says $9.99, but the charge is $10, then that 1c is not part of the contract, they technically stole it from you.

        • Muppet Detector on 02/12/2025 - 22:25
          -2

          No, the buyer submits the offer. The seller agrees. This is where contract is formed. Advertised price is not offer, not part of contract, just an invitation to negotiate. Seller stole nothing. Buyer offered 1C more than seller indicated they may agree to.

          https://www.australiancontractlaw.info/

          • trapper on 02/12/2025 - 23:52

            @Muppet Detector:

            just an invitation to negotiate.

            If the 'negotiation' concluded in $9.99 being agreed by both parties, then that is the contract. $10 is an overcharge.

            The invoice says $9.99 ffs - $10 was never agreed.

            • Muppet Detector on 03/12/2025 - 18:43
              +1

              @trapper: I see where I made a mistake, I apologise.

              However OP says his invoice stated $10 and it was the $10 entered into the machine etc as opposed to the $9.99 advertised.

              That was what I had in mind when I responded.

              OP hasn't said his invoice said $9.99 but they somehow deducted $10 from my electronic payment method.

              Had this been in cash, it is rounding up, but as we know, payment by electronic methods deducts the exact amount. It doesn't add an extra cent or two after customer agreed to a different price.

    • supersabroso on 03/12/2025 - 11:56

      Haha, just cashback will do. I never get annoyed because we all have the official OzBargain HSBC debit card which gives us 2% cashback on every paypass transaction under $100. Why get stressed for being over charged by 1c when you know you are getting 20c back? Life's too short to get hung up on those little things, be smart, be happy.

      • ATTS on 03/12/2025 - 17:22

        good point

  • redforever on 01/12/2025 - 11:05
    +26

    Whar sort of retailers. Most i have seen will scan the .99 prices.

      • terriblebargainer on 02/12/2025 - 14:34
        +18

        98% of retailers? No its most definitely not as you just listed it occurs at what would be a small percentage of retailers. And i dont recall ever being charged like you are claiming.

        You are claiming false advertising while making false claims, nice.

  • try2bhelpful on 01/12/2025 - 11:09
    +12

    Generally if you pay by card it is the .99 price if you pay cash they round up. Could only see that happening if they are charging a card fee and that doesn’t seem to be enough.

    • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 11:11
      -2

      Oh yep my wife like they advertising that price so should pay that price. I was like its only 1c. She like but still…

      Oh usually card fee is seperate thing i think though

      Yes was also aware that when pay cash they round up thats why i mention paying by card above

    • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 11:14

      Another issue i dont know much about ( reading) was i heard retailers was suppose to only charge enough card payment surcharge to cover the "fee costs" not to make additional profit? Is that true

      • jjjaar on 01/12/2025 - 11:37

        https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/pricing/card-surcharges

        Certain rules apply when a business applies a surcharge to particular cards including:

        • the surcharge must not be more than what it costs the business to process that payment type
        • the surcharge can only include costs that are for accepting that payment type. For example, if a business pays an amount for gateway fees for processing credit card transactions only, the business cannot include this cost in its surcharge for debit card transactions.
        • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 13:14

          Thanks,, does the payment terminal costs to use the card differ from business to business

          Somwtimes the surcharge is like 1% other times like the highest i been charged has been 2% i thought they might be using the same provider?

          • apsilon on 01/12/2025 - 14:44
            +2

            @ATTS: It differs not only by the payment provider but a provider may also offer discounted fees to high volume customers so yes, there's no way of know what a businesses actual cost is.

          • jjjaar on 01/12/2025 - 17:51
            +1

            @ATTS: As apsilon said, there’s no way of knowing when it’s ~5% or less. But if they charge you 50c fee for using card on a $2 transaction, that’s 25% and blatantly more than what they would be paying.

            That being said, they can refuse to accept card on a $2 transaction… or any transaction, really.

            • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 18:02

              @jjjaar: oh thanks i see, its interesting, so for example when a business chooses to absorb the payment surcharge costs its usually only for a minimum $10 spend. i always wondered why that was the case, would you know?

              • apsilon on 01/12/2025 - 18:18

                @ATTS: Some payment providers are a set fee + percentage eg 30c+1.6% so that may be why some places have a minimum charge for card. So say a $5 transaction the fee would be $0.38 but there's also GST on that $5 (in most cases) so the retailer is already really only getting $4.55 or $4.17 after the fee. That's around 16.5% of the transaction gone before even taking into account operating costs.

      • Muppet Detector on 01/12/2025 - 16:11

        Another issue i dont know much about ( reading) was i heard retailers was suppose to only charge enough card payment surcharge to cover the "fee costs" not to make additional profit? Is that true

        I think you will find that the usual wording is something along the lines of not charging more than it costs to process the payment.

        Processing costs are likely different (and therefor higher) than fee costs.

        • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 18:03

          oh thanks

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 01/12/2025 - 11:12
    +10

    Wow

  • Nillionaire on 01/12/2025 - 11:34
    +4

    buy a gift for your wife and she'll chill

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 01/12/2025 - 11:43
      +7

      Better make sure the receipt says whole $

    • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 13:09
      +1

      She's normally pretty chilled. I guess it's because we know each other so long She's comfortable sharing things with me , good and bad things

      She's already very spoiled lol

      Haha I prefer it that way though

  • JimmyF on 01/12/2025 - 11:37
    +24

    So notice when paying by card, this happens with 98% of retailers
    So example something advertised $9.99 but retailer charges $10.00

    Ummm calling BS on this claim…. 98% of retailers don't round up when paying by card, only by cash as per the law.

    • jjjaar on 01/12/2025 - 11:39
      +8

      It would be closer to like 0.001% of retailers, and only when they manually type in prices vs scan a barcode.

      But FWIW, yes OP, it would bother me if I was charged more for an individual item than it was advertised, and I would definitely say something and take my business elsewhere. Especially if it was a place that always did it; it may be 1c, but if you go there often, it adds up.

      • JimmyF on 01/12/2025 - 12:11
        +2

        it would bother me if I was charged more for an individual item than it was advertised

        Call them out on it.

      • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 13:24
        -1

        Oh right Thanks. Also I wonder say the owner gets annoyed for arguing over 1 cents, do they have right to deny you service and bans you from the store

        But yeah thats like take business elsewh were also right

        • JimmyF on 01/12/2025 - 13:35

          Also I wonder say the owner gets annoyed for arguing over 1 cents

          Most business owners don't even think twice about it as the POS system does this all automatically for them.

          Paying by card, it passes the exact total through, $9.97. Paying by cash, and it does the rounding down to $9.95.

          At the end of the day, most business are plus or minus 50c on the rounding per tax year. Its not the money maker you think it is. They're not buying a new boat from all this rounding.

          How much do you think you are losing on from this?

          • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 14:26

            @JimmyF: Ive only seen them press the number
            in the rectangle machine

            even gas refill

            $21.99 they enter $22

            to be honest not much, maybe few dollars a year

            • JimmyF on 01/12/2025 - 14:33
              +4

              @ATTS:

              Ive only seen them press the number in the rectangle machine

              Then call them out on it…. Umm the price is 21.99, not 22.

              • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 14:42
                -1

                @JimmyF: yeah thanks, i never really confronted the retailer, cause in the past i have been thinking its just 1 cents. but yeah i think might be good idea to do that, its just commotion becomes uncomfortable sometimes when there is a que

                • JimmyF on 01/12/2025 - 15:28

                  @ATTS:

                  in the past i have been thinking its just 1 cents. but yeah i think might be good idea to do that, its just commotion becomes uncomfortable sometimes when there is a que

                  You need to pick one outcome, you either accept the 1 cent overcharge and move on with life, or you call it out to the retailer, and move on with life after saving 1c.

            • MS Paint on 01/12/2025 - 14:45

              @ATTS:

              to be honest not much, maybe few dollars a year

              So it happens to you 200 times per year? BS. FFS

              • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 16:29
                -1

                @MS Paint: meant to say ova the years =]

            • Muppet Detector on 01/12/2025 - 16:19
              -1

              @ATTS:

              Ive only seen them press the number
              in the rectangle machine

              If you see it, tell them. Otherwise they think you have accepted your offer.

              Usually you would be shown the amount they manually entered before you continued and provided your PIN number, wouldn't you?

              • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 16:31

                @Muppet Detector: oh right, yes they show the amount on the rectangle machine. before tapping

                • Muppet Detector on 01/12/2025 - 16:33

                  @ATTS: That's their counter offer.

                  That's legal.

                  It's now up to you to

                  (I) accept their counter offer (so proceed with transaction) or;

                  (iI) submit your own counter offer or,

                  (iii) reject their counter offer.

              • Muppet Detector on 01/12/2025 - 16:38

                @Muppet Detector:

                Otherwise they think you have accepted your offer.

                Correction, too late to edit post.

                This should have said "otherwise they think you have accepted their counter offer".

                Sorry about that.

        • Muppet Detector on 01/12/2025 - 16:16

          Also I wonder say the owner gets annoyed for arguing over 1 cents, do they have right to deny you service and bans you from the store

          Yes. They cannot breach discrimination laws, but generally speaking, they get to choose who they want as their customers.

          But yeah thats like take business elsewh were also right

          Or you could reject their counter offer, or submit your own counter and reiterate that you only want to offer $9.99. Then if seller rejects, you go elsewhere to get a price to which you do agree. If they counter again, you can continue to negotiate if you want, or discontinue negotiations at any time prior to acceptance of an offer. If they accept your counter, then happy times.

    • ThithLord on 01/12/2025 - 12:25
      +4

      I cannot fathom how OP has multiple instances of this practice happening tot hem - I don't recall ever seeing this happen. I call BS

    • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 13:10
      -1

      Sorry meaning 98% retailers we go thru that advertise the price like that as we tend to go same retailers iften

  • MS Paint on 01/12/2025 - 11:53
    +4

    What a load of bollocks. FFS

  • sandman20104159 on 01/12/2025 - 12:26
    +8

    im the other way around, my pet peeve is when a store has item for $4.90 and you reach for cash, they say nope we dont accept it, then charge you a surcharge of 1.8% for using a card, i select savings eftpos and they charge me $5.07… IF YOU DONT ACCEPT CASH THEN DONT CHARGE SURCHARGE INC IT IN YOUR PRICE!!!!

    • CodeXD on 01/12/2025 - 13:02
      +2

      Report them, only way they'll learn.

    • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 13:07
      -1

      Tha ks for sharing i get annoyed that also. Also i think there was rule theirs suppose to have sign informing surcharge amount in percentage think but they dont often do

      Also weird another rule was illegal to i think having sign saying no refunds but they have sign

      I find this country weird they break rules like in the example of suecharge and refund sisgns

      • sandman20104159 on 01/12/2025 - 13:23

        yeah they had the sign to say surcharge for credit card… my bank card is a eftpos card meaning its not credit yet i still get charged the stupid fee. but when theres no cash and then charge ontop… thats double dipping!

        • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 13:26
          -1

          Haha true, thanks for sharing,

      • Muppet Detector on 01/12/2025 - 16:28
        +2

        Also weird another rule was illegal to i think having sign saying no refunds but they have sign

        This is considered illegal under ACL as it is deemed to be misleading and take away your rights provided under ACL.

        They are supposed to include a disclaimer saying something like "does not remove any rights given by ACL".

        They can refuse change of mind refunds, but for SNAD & NFFP, the law is on your side so you can ignore those kinds of signs.

        • ATTS on 01/12/2025 - 16:35
          -1

          oh right thanks

          • Muppet Detector on 01/12/2025 - 16:48

            @ATTS: Keep in mind, if a minor fault, automatic refund not guaranteed. Seller needs opportunity to determine how they want to rectify any faults in first instance. Their choice to repair, replace or refund.

            Once seller has had opportunity to remedy and it fails resulting in classification as major fault, then buyer gets choice of remedy which can include refund (or repair or replacement).

    • n3ck3ntry8bort0rgasm on 01/12/2025 - 22:04

      idk about OP's situash but I'm the same I pay cash a lot of things to save extra $$$ (yeah users called me stingy before but it really adds up for me). but never have I been told "nope we don't accept". in fact lots of the places I regular seem to embrace it. some offering extra % discount if I pay cash and I am happy with that. better than paying extra to payment CC companies that do nothing for me.
      a few places don't announce it but noticed prices get slightly lower when paying cash, and also noticed many places have a minimum spend usually $20 if youw want to pay card. while I can buy a drink for $1.80 with cash and walk out without spending $20.

      on another topic, bank cancelled my handycard even though the expiry date is many years ahead, the card don't work no more at all. can't withdraw cash. I have a mastercard debit which still works but even though connected to account I can't withdraw cash either. seems like banking steps towards cashless society soon I won't be able to withdraw at all anymore and will be forced to tap and pay for everything. makes sense because each person's spending/tracking habits can be data that can be sold for millions of dollars.

      • sandman20104159 on 02/12/2025 - 09:03

        theres a lot of places now days, mostly food trucks at public events in parks and stuff, then theres places like nandos and other food resturants that dont accept it anymore. i blame covid for that! like covid spread on notes and coins… that was the stupidist thing to come out of it.

        • n3ck3ntry8bort0rgasm on 02/12/2025 - 16:23

          yeah well the hidden message I got was. "we won't be supporting cash for much longer" from banks.

          • sandman20104159 on 02/12/2025 - 16:39

            @n3ck3ntry8bort0rgasm: well best of luck to shops when power goes out… aka 2021 when 3/4 of QLD lost power and no one could buy anything

            • n3ck3ntry8bort0rgasm on 02/12/2025 - 16:49

              @sandman20104159: yeah I remember hearing about something to do with a bad windows update for all the payment system computers. all payments couldn't be processed. only people with cash could checkout at the supermarket.

      • ATTS on 02/12/2025 - 13:46

        cool thanks for sharing

        i think places like cash because less income declaration

        maybe good idea to contact the banks dedicated tech team maybes?

        • n3ck3ntry8bort0rgasm on 02/12/2025 - 16:27

          yeah considering just moving to tap to pay though. more convenient, less chance of losing cash/being targeted by thiefs for having cash.

          I think there is a good reason they cancel the cash withdrawing card early and make it non functional even with many years of expiry left, and then they issued the new card with no withdrawal function (I'm sure I can withdraw on credit, but that definitely will cost me something and I don't want to do it). if I continue to fight for cash no matter what, I might be seen as "dodgy" or risky customer. welcome to the future I guess, digital id online and all electronic data collecting payment. the system probably also prefers I shop online, than at stores in person, because they get a lot more data that way.

    • kiitos on 02/12/2025 - 13:11

      That's more than a pet peeve, they are breaking the law by displaying the price incorrectly if there is no way to buy at the displayed price.

      • ATTS on 02/12/2025 - 13:49
        +1

        oh right thanks, but would they do anything about it? or just a warning maybes? like i heard ACCC being called toothless tiger?

    • trapper on 02/12/2025 - 20:46

      If there is no way to pay without a surcharge, then the surcharge MUST be included in the price. This is the law.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join