On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:40:12 +0000, Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:33:04 +0000, Peter Parry
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:53:12 +0000, Alex Heney
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 04:01:13 +0000, judith
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>He can indeed say it is an error.
>>>
>>>He can only "correct" that error without committing an offence by
>>>selling at the lower price.
>>
>>He can correct the error by taking "such steps as are reasonable to
>>prevent those consumers from relying on the indication". This can be
>>by telling them when they present the item for payment what the
>>correct price is and giving them the option of buying at the higher
>>price or not buying the goods.
>>
>
>So there is absolutely and utterly no point whatsoever in having this
>law?
Exactly. The bias is heavily towards a sloppy attitude by the store,
which really has nothing to fear. Indeed, the store's attitude has
been to portray the shopper wanting a fair deal as seeking some kind
of special treatment, when there is nothing whatsoever special about
expecting a store to advertise the correct price and honour it.
MM |