On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:40:12 +0000, Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:33:04 +0000, Peter Parry
>wrote:
>>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?
Why ever not? The defence of taking "reasonable steps" is not
absolute. For a small number of errors telling the buyer the correct
price and correcting the mistake at the till is perfectly reasonable.
For a large number of errors it isn't as correcting large numbers of
errors at the till would no longer be taking "reasonable steps".
>Because that would certainly be the case if he could legally do that.
Of course they can legally do that.
>I believe that this law only makes any sense at all if those steps
>inform the customer *before* he reaches the point where payment is
>requested.
If that was the case the law would say so. It doesn't, and no
reasonable interpretation shows it was ever meant to.
>And it is completely irrelevant whether that is automated at the till
>or not, although your suggestion in another post that automated tills
>didn't exist in 1987 is way off the mark.
It would be if I had said it, but I didn't. The relevant passage in
the 1987 Act is unchanged from at least 1968 and it was the latter
date I mentioned.
>>You are suggesting he commits an offence by telling someone the
>>correct price?
>
>He commits an offence by displaying the misleading price.
Correct.
>But the price is only misleading if he is only willing to sell at a
>higher price.
Wrong. He commits an offence by giving an indication which is
misleading as to the price at which any goods are _available_. No
sale or attempt at sale need take place - this is a fundamental point
you fail to grasp.
If your interpretation was correct no pricing check TS might make
would be worthwhile as for every error the trader need only say "I
wasn't going to sell it at that price" and they couldn't prove
otherwise . For a prosecution it would become necessary to find
someone who had bought the products or attempted to have done so and
quite plainly that isn't the case.
|