On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:48:30 +0000, Alex Heney
wrote:
>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.
Not just an attempted purchase, but an actual purchase because of the
lack of readability of fast-moving prices flashing up on the till
terminal, assuming this latter can actually be viewed by the customer.
And even if one ~could~ read a particular price, at that precise
instant it's already too late to do anything about it. The item has
been rung up already and added to the receipt being printed.
MM |