On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:34:36 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:16:41 +0000, Alex Heney
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Further to my previous response, as Cynic points out, para 2(c) of
>>section 21 makes it not an offence if the retailer takes "reasonable
>>steps" to prevent the customers relying on the misleading price.
>>
>>So the offence cannot have been committed as soon as the misleading
>>price is put up.
>
>Yes it is, the offence is created by indicating a misleading price,
>someone is guilty of that offence if they subsequently fail to prevent
>consumers from relying on the indication
But not if they do.
If something they subsequently do makes them not guilty, then how can
it have been an offence initially?
Actually, having just re-read that part of the legislation, I see that
we (Cynic & I) were misinterpreting it anyhow. That para only applies
where a price indication has *become* misleading after having been
given.
Which does rather negate the point I was making - I accept I was wrong
here.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
You have a fine personality..but not for a human
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |