On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:48:30 +0000, Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:34:07 +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'm not sure how else "On the prosecution of an offence under section
20 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 of giving a consumer a
misleading price indication, it was not necessary to prove that the
misleading price indication actually was given to a particular
consumer." can be interpreted otherwise especially as the unsuccessful
defence was based upon the absence of a consumer in the prosecution
process.
>I do not believe it valid, because it simply doesn't make sense.
Of course it makes sense. It may not be written the way it would have
been if it were being drafted today but it is perfectly adequate and
makes perfect sense so why change it?
>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.
In that case please explain how TS can bring many successful
prosecutions under this act when _no_ attempt at purchase has been
made?
>>>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 :-)
What is difficult about getting a copy of the till data and comparing
it with the shelf data or with using a POS terminal in training mode
to do the comparison?
If your claim that an attempted sale is necessary was credible the no
prosecution could ever ensue from these checks no matter how many
errors there were as no sale had been attempted.
>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.
The relevant section on misleading price indication came from the 1968
Act :-
"If any person offering to supply any goods gives, by whatever means,
any indication likely to be taken as an indication that the goods are
being offered at a price less than that at which they are in fact
being offered he shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be
guilty of an offence."
>I think we can safely assume that it was then intended to apply to
>current practices, in addition to keeping those old practices extinct.
Applying to current practice and being written for current practice
are not quite the same thing. The law as written in 1968 perfectly
adequately covers a method of trading which neither existed nor was
contemplated when it was written.
However, to claim as you are that it was written in either expectation
or knowledge of what is now normal practice is nonsensical.
>>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.
Of course it has. The offence is one of _offering_ for sale - of
false indication - not of selling or attempting to sell.
By your logic an absolute defence to mistakes TS find in a normal
check would be "But I'm quite willing to sell at that price if the
customer asks" or "I wasn't going to sell at that price - I would have
told people about the mistake before they got to the checkout". By
your logic without evidence of a sale or attempted sale no prosecution
could take place yet plainly they do. |