From: Toby on
a blathered on with:

> "George W Frost" <georgewfrost(a)gmail.com> wrote
>
>> It is the policy with BP that you are responsible for the cash in the till
>> Otherwise, you could tell the boss that someone drove off when you were busy with over $100 worth of fuel and you could put the
>> cash in your pocket
>
> That makes no sense. A drive-off doesn't make money disappear from the till.


ahHa!
Somebody gets it!
The only way an attendant can be liable is if they knowingly or
negligently allow drive-offs to occur.
The bullshit perpetrated by the companies if precisely that, and I
would suggest at law that in the higher courts losses from drive-offs
could very well be considered the fault of the companies NOT providing
sufficient staff to actually serve customers, and raking in the profits
from that situation with a straight face.

Next we need a discussion of the relative merits of NOT allowing a
purchase unless money has been taken from a customer.
The so-called fast food outlets (they're most assuredly neither
Restaurants nor Caf�s in the drive-thru role - but they pull the same
stunt at the counters, too) have pioneered this
everyone-is-a-criminal-approach to retailing in this country .

My thinking is that then need to be hung out to dry - before the
disgusting behaviour spreads any further. Like to fuel retailing,
ferinstance.



From: Noddy on

"a" <b(a)invalid.com> wrote in message news:4b600f29$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...

> That makes no sense. A drive-off doesn't make money disappear from the
> till.

No, but it makes reconciling the amount of fuel sold with the cash in the
tell at the end of the day awfully difficult.

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: Toby on
Noddy blathered on with:

>
> "a" <b(a)invalid.com> wrote in message news:4b600f29$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>> That makes no sense. A drive-off doesn't make money disappear from the
>> till.
>
> No, but it makes reconciling the amount of fuel sold with the cash in the
> tell at the end of the day awfully difficult.

New word...

Computer.

The company would know precisely which pump and at what time the drive
off occurred . ie, from 'this' dispensing event no payment is matched.
Add in the video loop, or less mucking about due the assistance of an
alert 'person' pressing the right buttons, and there's no problem there
at all.



From: Noddy on

"Toby" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message
news:hjp5dn$ajb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...

> New word...
>
> Computer.

Old world: Theft.

> The company would know precisely which pump and at what time the drive
> off occurred . ie, from 'this' dispensing event no payment is matched.
> Add in the video loop, or less mucking about due the assistance of an
> alert 'person' pressing the right buttons, and there's no problem there
> at all.

That's all well and good, but what it *won't* stop is the guy who walks in
on the busy console operator after filling his car and paying for a packet
of twisties. Net result is a short till with no idea who didn't pay.

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: Noddy on

"Toby" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message
news:hjp3i5$fk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...

> ahHa!
> Somebody gets it!
> The only way an attendant can be liable is if they knowingly or
> negligently allow drive-offs to occur.

Define "negligence" :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.