Are NZ businesses setting themselves up for potential lawsuits by charging the same but providing different service-levels for vaxxed and unvaxxed?
Have you been "profiled" at restaurants and retail places and supplied you with a different / lesser service for the same price?
Imagine you ordered a dish from from one of your favorite local restaurant, which costs you $20.
Imagine that same restaurant has implemented the segregation policy of disallowing unvaxxed customers to enter their premises.
However, you are still charged the same $20; the same as people who are allowed to eat-in and get the full dine-in experience.
Could the restaurants be in breach of one of the unfair practices; charging different price based on different customer profile but supplying them with the same goods or services (in this case charging the same price for a lesser service based on customer profile)?
One of the "unfair practices" that Consumer magazine list include:
Demanding or accepting payment without intending to supply the goods or services, or without believing they’ll be ready at a specified time, or intending to supply different goods or services.
By asking the same price but supplying different (lesser) service (i.e takeaway-only, or having to sit outside), are the restaurants possibly be considered charging more to unvaxxed as they are disallowed to enter the restaurants / premises compared to vaxxed who can enjoy the full dine-in / on-premise experience?
These are not limited to standalone restaurants or businesses but could be extended to "shared" spaces such as shopping-malls or food-courts:
How about having to scan the QR codes as condition of entry? What if you don't own a smartphone? Write-down in the paper-based entry log? What if you can't write in English?
What about cashless policies? How can businesses legally refuse the legal-tender of the nation they are operating in? What if you can't afford to own a bank account? What if you don't have a home or a permeant address (which is a requirement to open a bank account)?
In any of the above cases, is it lawful for these businesses to prevent you from entering the shop and enjoying the goods or services that you can afford to pay in full?
The last time I checked, these are considered in breach of Human-rights in New Zealand.
Being a human and being able to pay for these goods or services in full should be of enough condition for entry for all the New Zealand businesses.
Another unfair practice include:
Using physical force, harassment or coercion when supplying goods or services.
When restaurants prevent customers who refuse to wear masks, or show their vax pass to enter their restaurants, are the restaurants using harassments and coercion to supply their goods or services?
Businesses seriously need to consider the legal ramifications when doing the bidding for the unchecked and unlawful mandates on behalf of the corrupt government on vaxxed / unvaxxed segregation policies.
There are significant penalties if businesses are found to be in breach of these standards:
If a trader contravenes the unfair conduct or product safety provisions of the Act, criminal penalties may apply.
Companies can be fined up to $600,000 and individuals up to $200,000, plus costs.
Traders also risk being prosecuted by the Commerce Commission for failing to comply with consumer information standards and rules relating to door-to-door sales, extended warranties, layby sales and auctions. Penalties for breaches are limited to $10,000 for an individual and $30,000 for a company.
The commission has the option of issuing an infringement notice where a trader hasn’t given consumers the required information about their rights in relation to door-to-door, extended warranty and layby sales. The maximum infringement notice fine is $2000.
One way restaurants and shops could overcome this unfairness is to charge less for customers who are disallowed to enter their premises who can fully afford their goods or services.
Perhaps at least 12% discount (the amount that most waiters get as a tip for serving at restaurants around the world) to the customers who are disallowed to enter their premises and to enjoy their full on-premise experience?
Or perhaps, it is time for a compliant to the Commerce Commission at:
Or businesses could wise-up and allow everyone in before it's too late: