On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 04:01:13 +0000, judith
wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:27:39 +0000, Alex Heney
>wrote:
>
>>
>>It is an offence to give a misleading price indication (Consumer
>>Protection Act 1987, sections 20 & 21). As soon as they attempt to
>>sell the item at the higher price, that offence is committed.
>>Therefore, in order to avoid committing that offence, they must either
>>sell at the lower price, or not sell at all.
>
>The offence is not committed as soon as they attempt to sell at the
>higher price - the seller can say it is an error and correct the
>error.
>
He can indeed say it is an error.
He can only "correct" that error without committing an offence by
selling at the lower price.
If he says "it is an error the price should be x (where x is the
higher price)", then he is committing an offence.
>In particular the Act does not say:
>
>The store MUST charge the lower of the two prices, or remove the item
>from sale altogether.
>
It does not put it in those words, but that is the effect of it.
So long as the incorrect price indication is present, it is an offence
to attempt to sell the item at a higher price.
>The seller can (by way of a mistake) offer the item for sale at the
>lower price.
>As soon as a customer tries to buy at the lower price, the seller can
>say that that price is in error - the correct price is the higher
>price. The seller then corrects the price on the shelf and offers it
>for sale to the customer at the correct price.
>
Which is fine, provided the shelf price *is* corrected before the item
is offered to the customer at the higher price.
>The seller is not obliged to sell at the lower of the two prices -
>they can say it was a mistake. No offence has been committed.
>
So long as they *do* correct the shelf price before attempting to sell
at the higher price, yes.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Crime wouldn't pay if the government ran it.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |