On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:48:26 +0000, Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:58:40 +0000, judithsmith@live.co.uk wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:24:12 +0000, Alex Heney
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:16:38 +0000, judithsmith@live.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:41:12 +0000, MM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:10:30 +0000, Cynic
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:01:38 +0000, Alex Heney
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Incidentally, if the shelf price was higher than the till price (which
>>>>>>>>has happened to me), would you be just as adament that you should pay
>>>>>>>>the shelf price rather than the till price?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If not, why not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because the law requires otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The store MUST charge the lower of the two prices, or remove the item
>>>>>>>from sale altogether.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They CANNOT legally sell the item at the higher price.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They certainly can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Or do you believe that the Price Marking regulations are a window
>>>>>>>dressing law with no actual effect?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So if the teenager doing a holiday job at the supermarket marks a £750
>>>>>>HD telly as £7.50, you reckon I could (a) legally demand to buy it at
>>>>>>that price or (b) would not be permitted to buy it at the correct
>>>>>>price of £750 if I begged on my bended knees?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What if the price was altered on the shelf to the correct one?
>>>>>
>>>>>What AH was saying, which seems perfectly fair practice, is that
>>>>>provided the store ensures that no one is in the process of buying the
>>>>>item, then the store can change the label. If the risk is that not
>>>>>every shopper can be interrogated at the same time, then the item may
>>>>>not be sold at the higher price.
>>>>>
>>>>>MM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is something he made up - there is no legal basis for it
>>>>whatsoever.
>>>
>>>The legal basis is that if they attempt to charge any customer a
>>>higher price at the till than that shown on the shelf, they are
>>>committing an offence.
>>
>>
>>Please can you quote the precise legislation under which that would be
>>an offence.
>
>Read the bloody thread.
>
>It has been cited several times already (and not just by me).
I have read this thread - I have not seen it.
Please can you at least point me to the header of the message where
you think it is clarified.
You keep stating this (and other points) and you have yet to quote the
precise piece of legislation which states it.
For goodness sake - just copy and paste the paragraph which states
what you believe - we will then be able to see that you are in fact
correct and that the other 99% of contributors to the thread are
wrong.
|