On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:03:23 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:12:51 +0000, Alex Heney
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:40:55 +0000, Peter Parry
>>wrote:
>
>>>But there is nothing in the legislation about establish a contract of
>>>purchase. It is all about _giving_ misleading information, not about
>>>forming a contract based on misleading information. If they had meant
>>>the latter they would have said so.
>
>>Irrelevant.
>
>You think the content of the legislation is irrelevant if it doesn't
>support your rather arcane interpretation?
>
Not in the slightest.
Nor have I suggested the content of the legislation might be
irrelevant. Of course it isn't.
Why do you think I am suggesting that it might be?
Your point about what it says is irrelevant, since I have never
suggested that a "contract of purchase" is needed.
>>>>Many people would think they would be seen as a "cheapskate" if they
>>>>refused to buy the item at the correct price when told, and would feel
>>>>some pressure to actually buy it, when they wouldn't have chosen it at
>>>>the higher price.
>>
>>>You really think this influenced the drafting of the Act when it
>>>couldn't have taken place at that time?
>>
>>It most certainly could, and did, and yes, I am quite sure it
>>influenced the drafting of the act.
>
>How on earth could it when at the time the wording was assembled in
>1968 virtually the only way pricing in shops was done was by marking
>each individual item with its price. What was on the tin was what was
>charged. With a very few exceptions such as fresh vegetables the only
>knowledge of the price the till operator had was the price on the
>label on the item or on the shelf behind him the shopkeeper took it
>from. Self selection was still in its infancy.
First, we are talking of they 1987 act, not its precursors.
The act was redrafted in 1987 in order to take account of current
practices.
But second, I really cannot read the act as being intended to do
anything other than prevent the practice of people being charged a
different amount when they come top pay than they had expected to pay.
Whether that is down to a computerised till bringing up a different
price to that on the shelf, or whether it is down to some other
nefarious practice of a shopkeeper is utterly irrelevant.
>
>>>>And IMO, the whole point of that part of the act is
>>>>to prevent exactly that occurrence.
>>>
>>>Only if the draftsmen had fully functioning crystal balls. POS
>>>terminals and retail barcode scanning didn't even exist when the
>>>legislation was written.
>>
>>And are utterly irrelevant to my point.
>
>Of course it is relevant - you are postulating that the draftsmen of
>the legislation were contemplating that a shopper would be told a
>different price at the till and feel under pressure to buy and that
>this influenced the drafting of the Act when such a situation was at
>best highly improbable given the way prices were marked _on_ goods at
>the time.
So you think they drafted an act to stop something that couldn't
happen?
Of course they didn't.
*How* it happens is irrelevant.
The act is drafted to make it illegal to indicate a price which is
lower than the price the customer will finally be charge. NO matter
how that difference comes about.
>
>>The point I was making was that informing them of the correct price at
>>the till is too late, because people may feel pressure to still buy.
>
>There is no mention of this in the Act. It is impossible that it
>influenced the drafting of the Act. It is a complete figment of your
>imagination.
>
>>How the till operates is completely and utterly irrelevant to that
>>point.
>
>Hardly, as the way tills operate now is wholly different from the way
>they did before 1968. If the Act had been drafted today your point
>might have influenced its composition. At the time the relevant part
>was written in 1968 it was impossible for it to have done so.
I really cannot understand how you can believe this. IT means you
think the act made no sense whatsoever when it was drafted.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A committee has 6 or more legs and no brain.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |