On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:06:47 +0000, Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:31:48 +0000, Cynic
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:41:46 +0000, Alex Heney
>>wrote:
>>
>>>OK.
>>>
>>>From the Consumer Protection Act 1987, sections 20-21 (as I have
>>>already cited several times, but not copied the paras).
>>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>>20. Offence of giving misleading indication.— (1) Subject to the
>>>following provisions of this Part, a person shall be guilty of an
>>>offence if, in the course of any business of his, he gives (by any
>>>means
>>>whatever) to any consumers an indication which is misleading as to the
>>>price at which any goods, services, accommodation or facilities are
>>>available (whether generally or from particular persons).
>>>
>>>(2) Subject as aforesaid, a person shall be guilty of an offence if—
>>>(a) in the course of any business of his, he has given an indication
>>>to any consumers which, after it was given, has become misleading as
>>>mentioned in subsection (1) above; and
>>>(b) some or all of those consumers might reasonably be expected to
>>>rely on the indication at a time after it has become misleading; and
>>>(c) he fails to take all such steps as are reasonable to prevent those
>>>consumers from relying on the indication.
>>
>>It is 2(c) that prevents it from being an absolute offence. As I have
>>said, so long as the store exercised reasonable care, they have *not*
>>committed an offence even if they have the occasional incorrectly
>>marked price.
>
>
>How on earth you can read that into 2(c) I just don't know.
>
>that doesn't say that an occasional mistaken price is not an offence.
>It says that it will not be an offence if he takes reasonable steps to
>ensure no customer relies on said mistaken price.
>
>But we are arguing a minor pedantic point here IMO, since we both
>agree that prosecution just isn't going to happen where it is just a
>few mistakes, which are corrected as soon as noticed.
And actually, I realised tonight that para 2(c) *only* applies where
the price indication has *become* misleading after having been given.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |