On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:40:55 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:14:08 +0000, Alex Heney
>wrote:
>
>>>What difference would telling someone as they approached the checkout
>>>make over telling them when they were at the checkout?
>>
>>At that point, they haven't presented the item for purchase, so it is
>>easier for them to change their mind, and just put the item down on a
>>shelf.
>
>But there is nothing in the legislation about establish a contract of
>purchase. It is all about _giving_ misleading information, not about
>forming a contract based on misleading information. If they had meant
>the latter they would have said so.
>
Irrelevant.
>>Many people would think they would be seen as a "cheapskate" if they
>>refused to buy the item at the correct price when told, and would feel
>>some pressure to actually buy it, when they wouldn't have chosen it at
>>the higher price.
>
>You really think this influenced the drafting of the Act when it
>couldn't have taken place at that time?
It most certainly could, and did, and yes, I am quite sure it
influenced the drafting of the act.
>
>>And IMO, the whole point of that part of the act is
>>to prevent exactly that occurrence.
>
>Only if the draftsmen had fully functioning crystal balls. POS
>terminals and retail barcode scanning didn't even exist when the
>legislation was written.
And are utterly irrelevant to my point.
The point I was making was that informing them of the correct price at
the till is too late, because people may feel pressure to still buy.
How the till operates is completely and utterly irrelevant to that
point.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Modem: A great deterrent to phone solicitors
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |