Just a heads up so you don't put other retailers through pain...

[Rubric]

With an attitude like that Im surprised you make it through a day on the tills without getting a fucking shopping basket wrapped around your head.

But like all his colleagues in Lidl he doesn't actually say anything to them he just dribbles at them.

 

[Laddey]

Old, but it got to be used!

Bugz just got OWNED!

Hahaha. Jesus, never seen it before. That shit is funny.

 

[Dukat]

omfg ffs read the thread, who do you think you are? bugz?

omg.


:wub:

 

[Bugz]

Problems with Goods and Services 4

What if something is marked with the wrong price?

If something is wrongly marked with a lower price, you can’t insist on buying it at that price. The law says that a retailer can refuse to sell anything to you, at any price, without giving a reason. But if a retailer sells you something at too low a price by mistake, they can’t later make you pay the extra, unless they can show you knew the price was wrong.

NCA - Product Prices

Wrongly marked prices

Shops can and often do make an honest mistake about the prices they display. A common example would be where some price labels are wrong and the marked price is lower than what the price should be.

In such a situation your staff at the till need to point out that the marked price is wrong, then the customer has the choice whether they are willing to pay the proper price or put back the goods without buying them.

Kthanks.

Cookie for Crom for understanding the context of the thread.

 

[Laddey]

Problems with Goods and Services 4



NCA - Product Prices



Kthanks.

Cookie for Crom for understanding the context of the thread.

Bugz, would you I.D me for beer if you knew it was me? cnut

 

[tris-]

no shit sherlock.
but that isnt what you were saying.

you said if you sell something at a higher price than marked then it isnt illegal.

 

[Bugz]

no shit sherlock.
but that isnt what you were saying.

you said if you sell something at a higher price than marked then it isnt illegal.

I've had about 5-6 people today threatening to bring legal action because we charge 3-4p from an out of date price on the shelf. Get a life and learn the law.

FYI, in retail, prices for goods can change within the course of a day because of external factors. It isn't easy to replace so and so barcodes in such a small space of time. We try to - but we don't always get it done. You'd understanding how much needs to be done in a shop if you worked in one. In this case - it is an honest mistake.

In this case Tris - it's quite funny how you take the 'omg you are wrong' attitude the whole thread then suddenly, you 'forget' to read the first post. Isn't that ironic.

 

[Amildin]

But you said several people had come up to you that day and complained about the price being wrong. Whether it is legal or not it is shit customer service to have several people complain about this and not take any action, and instead come slagging THEM off here?

Surprised nettos haven't dumped you in the warehouse by now, if you take this high and mighty stance all the time.

 

[pikeh]

just have to realise that the "general public" suck ass.

/edited
havnt read that whole thread xD

 

[Nate]

If a company kept getting it wrong or not changing the prices on labels, customers would stop coming as they are untrustworthy.

 

[tris-]

Consumer protection act 1987 s20
Offence of giving misleading indication.

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part, a person shall be guilty of an offence if, in the course of any business of his, he gives (by any means whatever) to any consumers an indication which is misleading as to the price at which any goods, services, accommodation or facilities are available (whether generally or from particular persons).

(2) Subject as aforesaid, a person shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a) in the course of any business of his, he has given an indication to any consumers which, after it was given, has become misleading as mentioned in subsection (1) above; and

(b) some or all of those consumers might reasonably be expected to rely on the indication at a time after it has become misleading; and

(c) he fails to take all such steps as are reasonable to prevent those consumers from relying on the indication.

maybe you should get a life and learn the law, as you elegantly put it.

Toys R Us v Gloucestershire CC
"Abstract: Where prices on the shelf tickets differ from prices held in a list at the till, and the cashier charges the lower price as displayed on the shelf, there is no misleading indication of price contrary to the Consumer Protection Act 1987, s.20. T displayed goods with lower prices on the shelf tickets than were shown on a price list at the till. Trading standards officers who visited the store argued that this was in contravention of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 s.20 , as it showed an intention to mislead the purchaser as to the price to be charged. On each occasion the cashier noticed the difference and charged the lower price. T was convicted, and appealed.

Held, allowing T's appeal, that the fact that the discrepancies had been noticed, and the lower prices charged, showed that the company's intention was to charge the lower price as displayed on the shelf ticket."

now if the higher price was charged, guess what would of happened?

 

[Raven]

We try to - but we don't always get it done. You'd understanding how much needs to be done in a shop if you worked in one. In this case - it is an honest mistake.

That doesn't make any difference in the eyes of the law, you cannot advertise goods at a false price, you either sell them at the lower price advertised or pull them from your shelves, a responsible shop keeper will usually honour the price (assuming its not a silly amount) to keep the customer happy. Your boss needs to employ people more capable of managing a shop. If the prices are wrong it is still the shops fault, Its not rocket science, the specials have a particular barcode on them so when it does get scanned it is scanned at the correct price, if someone is fucking up the prices then they are obviously not up to the job.

 

[tris-]

yes. and the fact its happening regularly in a day shows your due diligence system probably isnt upto scratch.

 

[Bugz]

Tris you are fighting a losing battle my friend. You are looking at misleading of the customers - I am not.

I don't have time to argue against you as I have things to attend to atm but i shall later if need be.

By the way - this started off as a 'please don't shout at me that I am breaking the law etc.' plea and turned into a debate on this. I did not start this. You people did.

In this case - the links I provided are both correct and it stands to date that as long as you're not directly misleading customers through false prices, you not breaking the law.

Edit - or Tris - it shows that on the day I work - changes for a popular product changed due to external events?

I forbid you to continue this arguement and for once accept that you have lost what you tried to win.

 

[tris-]

sorry but case law and legislation is the authority.
random websites are not.

whos the more informed person here? the person who works in a shitty shop or the person doing a consumer law degree?

look at this section

(a) in the course of any business of his, he has given an indication to any consumers which, after it was given, has become misleading as mentioned in subsection (1) above; and

(b) some or all of those consumers might reasonably be expected to rely on the indication at a time after it has become misleading; and

(c) he fails to take all such steps as are reasonable to prevent those consumers from relying on the indication.

no mens rea is required. you dont need to intent to mislead anyone, its a strict liability offence. the fact that its happened creates the offence, not that you intended to or not.

and forbid me to argue back? LOL. bigsoz, but i will do what i want.

 

[Marc]

sorry but case law and legislation is the authority.
random websites are not.

whos the more informed person here? the person who works in a shitty shop or the person doing a consumer law degree?

 

[tris-]

rofl

 

[UrganNagru]

Just had a quick look back through thread and I couldn't find any links to official acts, but the Trading standards website and NCA website seem to conflict with each other.

Nicked from Tris's TSA link:
"The seller of the goods does not have to sell you the goods if the price indication is incorrect, for example where a genuine mistake has been made in pricing the goods.
If a retailer sell you goods with a misleading price, for example where the price indicated is £2.99 and you are charged £3.49 at the checkout, this is incorrect. This misleading price could result in an offence being committed by the retailer. "

Nicked from Bugz:
"In such a situation your staff at the till need to point out that the marked price is wrong, then the customer has the choice whether they are willing to pay the proper price or put back the goods without buying them."

The NCA puts the Onus on the consumer, to either pay the higher price or not buy the item, while my interpretation of the TSA is that they have to sell the item at the lower price or refuse to sell it as it could otherwise be construed as "misleading" the customer.

Problem is both aren't actual quotations of regulations but I'd go with the TSA over the NCA.

 

[tris-]

even better, go with the actual law rather than either of those links
that NCA thing is bullshit imo, as its in contrary to the actual legislation.

 

[Amildin]

Tris, i read what you said and it made complete sense so i am going to babble on about how i won and blindly ignore the fact i am incorrect.

I now have to attend to my books to try and come up with a reasonable argument back, and failing that ill ask my dad how he gets out of all the screw ups the police make, there must be a trick i can use to get me out of this one.

In the meantime ill forbid you to keep talking about this subject on a public internet posting site on which i have no means to prevent or punish you.

Is all i read

 

[Elkie]

Unfortunately Bugz, you are now wrong. If an item is priced at £2.99 and you go to the checkouts and it prices up at £3.34, they have to sell you the item according to the price that is on the label. If for instance you buy a galaxy choclate bar and buy it for the price on the label yet supermarket charges more, they are earning more money than they should from the product. There for they're stealing money from the company 'galaxy'. The use of 'false advertisement' is against the law. However!! In your defence, if you walk into a tesco store and buy a tesco value so and so... which has no price on the product itself and on the shelf at the store it says 15p. They can charge you the price they wish as no clear statement of price is on the label but the company owns that product.

 

[tris-]

just one thing elkie,
they dont HAVE TO sell the product. they can either sell it at the lower price or not at all.

 

[Elkie]

just one thing elkie,
they dont HAVE TO sell the product. they can either sell it at the lower price or not at all.

Yes very true, sorry missed that from original post.

 

[tris-]

problem is, you might be forbidden to post anymore by the mighty bugzinator

 

[Elkie]

problem is, you might be forbidden to post anymore by the mighty bugzinator

. Ignorance of some people who can't accept that they are not right . I would put my job on the line that if he bought something thinking it was 1 pence (like milk bottle or something) and it priced up as 10p first thing would say or think would be 'it says 1pence on container'. Not 'ah well they scanner is always right sod the 9p!'

 

[Blackjack]

Very hard to believe the pic, i mean with Bugz' extensive 4 months of Taekwondo experience...

 

[tris-]

lol
and his dad works for the police too, was a tough KO i can tell you.

 

[Huntingtons]

heh i always thought it was an alien in your avatar tris- i now see i have been fooled!

 

[Bugz]

The Data Protection Act you posted conflicts with about 4-5 websites I've looked up on - all of which are consumer-info related and supported/affiliated in some way by governments or what-have-you.

Thus begs the question - what is the stance on this? If the law says something - in practice it's true - but if consumer-related sites are spilling out something completely difference - then I am unsure how to observe this.

Perhaps I was too ignorant in my assertion to not accept that different sites say different things. I do believe however that there is obviously a very blunt lack of understanding, by everyone, on how such a scenario should be addressed.

As for all the rest of you that decided to add in chirpy comments - we shall see where I am in ten years and where you currently are. I assert the right to argue my view on a forum without people who are too stupid to argue against me trying to cause commotion. I bet half of you don't even have AS/A-Levels lmao.

Those who wish to be owned some more in true Bugzy style, can PM me and I will be happy to forefront my list of 'pwned' against yours - you will lose trust.

One thing that is interesting however, is that one government website I found on a site earlier today stated that stores under 280metres squared don't even have to have price labels.

Anywho - I have spent too much time searching for websites to argue against websites you've spent time searching for - I shall pit this question to Gordon Brown and then curse him for allowing us to be given two sides of information.

 

[Himse]

Please Bugz, stop digging yourself a hole and just give up, you've lost.

I think tris knows what the fuck he's on about.