On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:34:07 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:58:27 +0000, Alex Heney
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:00:13 +0000, Peter Parry
>>wrote:
>
>>>The offence is committed as soon as the item is incorrectly priced and
>>>put on display. It matters not whether or not someone attempts to buy
>>>it.
>>
>>That is one interpretation.
>
>As it happens to be the interpretation of the courts it seems to be an
>adequate one.
That is your interpretation of what the courts think.
I do not believe it valid, because it simply doesn't make sense.
If the store is willing to sell at that price, then it is not
misleading. But an attempted purchase is necessary to find that out.
>
>>But how can it possibly be *known* (never mind proved) that the price
>>is misleading until another price is given.
>
>Very easily, Trading Standards do it every day.
I never knew they could do the impossible :-)
>
>>I'm sorry, but I just cannot accept that the offence can occur unless
>>both parts are present - an low price displayed, and a higher price
>>charged (or attempted to be charged).
>
>The parts of the Consumer Credit Act we are discussing date from 1968
>or earlier. They were never intended to cover computerised point of
>sale systems where the price charged was determined by barcode rather
>than a marking on a product as that process didn't exist when the
>legislation was written.
So what?
Was that supposed to have the slightest shred of relevance to my
point?
>
>Instead it was intended to prevent the then common (and now more or
>less extinct) scams such as marking non-existent "discounts" or false
>"sales" to create the impression you would be charged less than the
>displayed price or (more usually) to make it difficult to tell what
>the price you would pay actually would be. There was no need for a
>purchase or attempted purchase to take place to detect and prosecute
>these and introducing a need for a purchase would have hindered
>enforcement unnecessarily.
OK. I never did any real shopping then (I was only 9), so don't
remember those scams.
But the act was updated in 1987.
I think we can safely assume that it was then intended to apply to
current practices, in addition to keeping those old practices extinct.
>
>>And even if it can occur that way, it certainly cannot be proved to
>>have occurred.
>
>It can easily be proven. The usual TS check is to get the retailer to
>put one POS terminal in training mode and check a random number of
>shelf prices against POS display prices. If the number of pricing
>errors is greater than one in twenty the retailer will be warned, if
>it is greater than one in ten they may be prosecuted.
>
That is effectively having access to their internal data, which I did
say in another post could be used to prove that the price was
misleading.
>Neither sale, attempted sale nor customer is present. The offence is
>not one of _selling_ at a misleading price but of _indicating_ a
>misleading price.
I still think that if the store is willing to sell the item at the
indicated price, then no offence is committed.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
People who live in stone houses shouldn't throw glasses.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |