Re: Cityracket ticket inspectors

[paulrw@xa2.com.au (paul)]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:20:45 GMT, "Dave Proctor"
<daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>"Greg" <gregg@hactrix.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:38fa7d73@news.actrix.gen.nz...
>
>> hahahaha u r not suggesting the tickets cost nothing to produce are u?
>some
>> one pays .. and itsa those who travel ....
>> have u ever purchased a ticket?  nuff said!
>
>So are you saying that the cost to produce a $17 return ticket is $16 more
>than the cost to produce a $1 pensioner excursion?
>
>Actually, there is considerable body of law (mainly UK law from prior to
>1901, hence it has precedental value here) that says that when you pay your
>fare and receive your ticket, you are not actually paying for the ticket.
>There was a case in the United Kingdom a few years back based on this law
>where someone had a receipt for the fare paid (it was a credit card receipt
>or something like that) but did not have their ticket, and their details
>came up on the conductors printout, so there was no dispute that the fare
>had not been paid.
>
>The court held that the railway, as the woner of the ticket, was entitled to
>demand that the ticket be produced on demand during the journey. The court
>held that the passenger was liable for the fare evasion fine (penalty fare
>in the UK) because the railway, having furnished the passenger with a ticket
>as evidence that he had paid the appropriate fare, was fully entitled to not
>accept any other proof of payment.
>
The law in this state is that the fare must have been paid, not that
the ticket must be 
>I do not have the cases to hand, but I can dig them out if you want. It will
>take a while, as we are on uni breaks at the moment.
>
>Dave
>
>