On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:00:11 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:
>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".
>
There is no defence of "reasonable steps" except in the case where the
price indication has only become misleading after having been given.
But it is irrelevant IMO anyhow, since I do not accept that there
would be any point in having the law if the retailer were allowed to
charge a higher price than the one indicated.
Which you are saying they can merely by telling the customer at the
till that is the price.
>>Because that would certainly be the case if he could legally do that.
>
>Of course they can legally do that.
There is no "of course" about it. Not even remotely close to it.
It is *possible* they are, but only if the law is pointless.
>
>>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.
>
I think my interpretation is a lot more reasonable than yours.
But I wouldn't go so far as to say yours is unreasonable, as you do
with mine.
>>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.
Actually, in that post, you didn't mention a date, it was only in
later posts (after the response of mine here) I realised you were
talking about the 1968 act.
>
>>>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.
I do see your point. And I can accept that no attempted sale needs to
have taken place if TS have access to the computer data (in the form
of output from training mode tills).
But I still say that according to the act the price is only misleading
if the goods are not available at that price.
It doesn't say they are misleading if they are (also) available at a
different price, but only that it is misleading if they are not
available at that price.
>
>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 .
Maybe nobody has suggested to the stores they try that defence :-)
Or maybe the courts just wouldn't believe the retailer, unless said
retailer has a clear policy stated to all staff that they should
always charge the lower price where there is a difference.
> 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.
Until you posted about TS checking the prices using training mode
tills, I thought it was the case.
Incidentally, I presume that prior to the introduction of computerised
tills, they *could* only prove the offence by somebody attempting to
make a purchase.
Unfortunately, I can't find any references at all to case law on this
- presumably these cases are so open and shut they never get appealed.
The references I can find are all to cases where the price was
misleading for other reasons (such as refusing to honour claims that
they would beat any competitor's price by £10), and those obviously
*do* require somebody to make a purchase.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Crime does not pay...as well as politics.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |