Reply #217: The law is on the OP's side- for good reason

[depakid]

and I also agree that the world (as well as individuals and business) acted reasonably when petty disputes like this come up.

Now, the trouble in consumer situations is that large volume businesses don't always have enough incentive to "do the right thing." One customer doesn't mean that much to them (particularly say- with a commodity like retail gasoline).

So the law adds incentives on- and hard noses will have examples made of them, and word gets out.

Sometimes that results in what the "moralizers" see as an undue boon to the consumer- and (failing to consider the larger picture) that hacks them off- though my guess is that majority would side with the OP were the tables turned on them personally

What we have here is no different than the seller increasing the "price" arbitrarily after the gas is in the tank- and then threatening the consumer when they don't pay up. As Solon's post pointed out- there's a CLEAR legal detriment to the consumer if they followed the seller's demand.

Would anyone be taking the side of the merchant if tried to raise his price after the goods had effectively been consumed? Mr. Jones- that dinner will now cost you $16 instead on $15 (and maybe more).

The cop in both cases understood this, and would that there were more like him. That would be in everyone's best interests (even if some still refuse to see it).