Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Get RSM on your side at tax time.

Wood Fired Pizzas

By will roper - 10 September 2007 48

On Saturday evening we decided that pizzas would be nice, so we checked the website menu for a wood fired pizza purveyor in Civic. The menu had prices, so I had an expectation that the price would be around $42. The woman at the counter told me that the price was $47. When I pointed out the discrepancy and that the website prices were lower, she explained that the website was in the process of being updated and the advertised prices were no longer correct. When I showed little sympathy, she explained that they really couldn’t afford to sell pizzas at the advertised prices. On that basis, I decided not to press the issue and left the freshly made pizzas with her. We then decided to patronise the wood fired pizza purveyor at Red Hill shops, where the prices are as advertised (albeit, not on the web).

What sort of Mickey Mouse organisation fails to deliver a product at the advertised price and offers the feeble excuse that the menu is going to be updated? Have they realised that Canberra pizza afficionados are so compliant that they will pay at higher than advertised prices?

The home page shows that they last updated their website on 13 August 2007.

Did anyone buy three slightly stale pizzas in Civic on Saturday night (8 Sep)?

What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
48 Responses to
Wood Fired Pizzas
will roper 12:00 pm 10 Sep 07

It seems that I have attracted comments from some of the staff who are so brain dead that they will meekly pay any price that someone asks of them.

This was by no means my biggest problem over the weekend, but it was the simplest.

Just to make it clear, I looked at the online menu and ordered takeaway by phone. I didn’t see a menu in the store. The woman at the till advised the total price which did not reflect the website prices.. I was polite, as was she.

The pizzas were small, one person size. The $1.67 per pizza was probably offset by the cost of reordering and extra travel.

The moral of this story, for the deadheads who don’t get it is that I got uptight over a modest $5, but there is the remote possibility that the establishment (not Woodstock, but the one that is close to London Circuit) might review their business practice and not try this stunt again.

I realised that they didn’t have to sell me the pizzas at the advertised prices, but they might learn that apart from a few dickheads who have commented here, not everyone is as gullible.

If you Rockefellers are so dismissive of $5, then I am happy to accept your surplus notes. I will even provide a $3 product for $5. It will beat working for my money.

Woody Mann-Caruso 11:43 am 10 Sep 07

WMC, is the legal principle thingy known as “invitation to treat”?

If my first year law serves me correctly (and I spent an awful lot of time playing MUDs instead going to lectures ;>), yes.

Opening a store, displaying wares, having a spruiker, it’s all an invitation to treat – that is, encouraging people to enter into a contract by making an offer.

Consumer law kicks in when such an invitation is made dishonestly (we have pizzas for $5.95! Oh, wait, we only had one of those, but perhaps you’d be interested in this $15.95 pizza now that you’ve driven all this way, and no, we won’t be updating our advertisements.)

An invitation to treat is not a burden to accept an offer (just because you bring socks to the counter doesn’t mean I have to sell them to you). Likewise, a store’s acceptance of an offer is not an acceptance if it includes a counter-offer (so if I say I want a pizza with a price tag of $15, and you say you’ll let me have it for $25, I don’t have to pay you and can just walk away – you can’t say “but you said you’d take it” and sue me).

Ingeegoodbee 11:30 am 10 Sep 07

WMC, is the legal principle thingy known as “invitation to treat”?

My (albeit dodgy legal) understanding of any transaction would be that the customer presents at the counter with a product by doing so they are offering to buy the product at a price – generally the one on the price sticker – the seller then decides whether to accept or reject the offer. And that effectively, with the exception of occasional distortions created by consumer laws, the reality is that the “seller is always right” rather than the widely held view to the opposite.

On another kind of related thing where do businesses stand when they use a disclaimer like “prices subject to change without notice”?

hingo 11:21 am 10 Sep 07

Is it Woodstock? If so, I’m sure they can cover the $5. They have the most overpriced seafood basket on the planet.

hk0reduck 11:12 am 10 Sep 07

Someone should name this store so I can try one of these Mango pizzas.

I understand the principle of what you did but you delayed food reaching your stomach by an extra 40 minutes at the minimum (20 minutes travel from civic to red hill, 20 minutes order+cooking, not inclusive of the time you spent ordering at the place in civic) all for the price of $0.83 per person(3 pizzas, 2 people per pizza).

Calm down and chill out.

philbert83au 9:59 am 10 Sep 07

Under the Trade Practices Act there’s no actual law forcing them to give it to you at the lower price, but the law of misleading and deceptive conduct would apply, as well as the ACT Fair Trading Act (eg s 22 Dual Pricing). As an aside, supermarkets have a code of conduct which forces them to give it to you at the advertised price.

I recommend that shop’s tandoori chicken and mango pizza in any event!

Kramer 9:59 am 10 Sep 07

Was it worth $5 for your time and fuel to go to a different pizza place?

If money is such an issue, I believe you can get a Dominos pizza for $5.95 with a voucher.

JD114 9:55 am 10 Sep 07

Why oh why do businesses continue to offend and lose customers for the sake of a few meaningless bucks?

Years ago there wasa mob in O’Connnor called Delicate Eating and they made gourmet pizzas. A friend of mine used to get the odd one and phoned in to get a price for some fancy pants smoked chicken pizza. The price? $24.00 plus. OK, it’s steep but the deal was made. On presenting herself at the counter to receive her gold-and diamond encrusted pizza, she was informed the quote was wrong and the price was $28.50. She argued the point but the owner refused to honour the quoted price. My friend elected to fork over the cash and get the pizza because it was dinnertime already and no viable alternative existed.

The net result for the business. $4.00 added to their annual takings. Two customers who never set foot in there again. In addition about another 20 friends were turned off the business by our experience and wouldn’t go there either. A 40th birthday party for 50 people was even cancelled on the strength of it. The business ended up folding, so we doubtless weren’t the only ones they pissed off mightily.

As for those commentators above in the style of ‘get over it’ or ‘is that the biggest problem you had on the weekend?’: a bit of advice… don’t leave your current employment to open a business because if that’s your attitude you will go the way of Delicate Eating.

Woody Mann-Caruso 9:44 am 10 Sep 07

You make an offer when you say “Three pizzas please.”
They accept when they say “That’ll be $47, thanks.”
You can choose to walk away at that time, or you can give consideration (the $47) and complete the contract.

Still, there are laws that protect consumers against fraudulent advertising. An honest mistake is one thing, but the test of honesty is that you do everything reasonably possible to correct it as soon as is reasonably possible. “Yeah, that needs to be fixed” isn’t the same thing as “wow, sorry, I’ll fix that now.” How long since their prices changed?

Any business interested in keeping a customer’s good will would match the advertised price; throwing ingredients down the drain for the sake of $5 seems a bit thick.

Then again, did you order the pizzas in the store? Do they have the correct prices there? Did you see the correct prices, order anyway, wait for the pizzas to arrive then try to argue the difference to make a point? If so, you’d be the thick one.

hingo 9:37 am 10 Sep 07

They should have only charged the price as advertised, but in saying that, $5 isn’t worth arguing over. If it was me, I would have just handed over the money, but I’m not a fish arse.

justbands 9:28 am 10 Sep 07

I would have demanded to pay only the price as advertised.

TAD 9:26 am 10 Sep 07

I’m siding with Will. He offered to pay the $42 (which was advertised) and it was the restaurant declined to take it and accept a loss rather than a smaller profit.

If I’m not mistaken this same restaurant takes the “Priveleges’ card anyway that would have saved $10 anyway.

Perhaps Will didn’t stay calm and polite.

Ingeegoodbee 8:35 am 10 Sep 07

I guess it’s also worth noting that tecnically, the pizza place has the right to charge what it likes (within the bounds of consumer law of course) but even then, inadvertant and honest errors do not oblige a business to sell its goods at a price not of its choosing. Some of the legal types who frequent RA might have more to add, but I suspect that what happend here was that a purveyor of wood-fired pizzas has infact flushed out a tight-arse.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with 8:06 am 10 Sep 07

Wow, that’s got to be up their with world hunger and child exploitation. If that’s the biggest problem you had all weekend, I’d suggest you get over it!

Tiffo 7:56 am 10 Sep 07

FFS! It was only $5! Pay up and get over it. Life is too short to frack around a business like that.

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site