On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:59:13 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:48:30 +0000, Alex Heney
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:34:07 +0000, Peter Parry
>>wrote:
>
I'm not responding to the first parts of this because most of it has
now been covered by other posts.
>>OK. I never did any real shopping then (I was only 9), so don't
>>remember those scams.
Although in fact, they do still occur, and I fully accept that those
instances do not require any purchase or attempted purchase to be
plainly prosecutable.
>>
>>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.
It would be, if I had ever claimed that.
But I didn't.
I don't understand why you have persistently interpreted my comments
as only applying to computerised tills.
>
>>>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.
I think the store would have to show evidence to support their case,
but yes, I do think that would be a defence, although I'm not at all
sure regarding "if the customer asks".
I don't know, and can't find cites either way, but I suspect it would
be hard to obtain a conviction if the store had a strict policy,
handed down to all staff, of always charging the lower price where a
difference is noted.
But then I doubt any store having such a policy would often fall foul
of the (ridiculously lenient IMV) of the percentage of "errors" at
which TS will prosecute.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Editing is a rewording activity.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |