On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:41:06 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:
>>Incidentally, I presume that prior to the introduction of computerised
>>tills, they *could* only prove the offence by somebody attempting to
>>make a purchase.
>
>Prior to automatic tills this sort of problem really didn't exist.
>Both the cashier and customer relied upon the same price label on the
>item being sold. Making a purchase is a simple way of proving a
>mis-pricing case but it isn't the only one. The origins of this part
>of the Consumer Protection Act were to stamp out the misleading
>indications I've mentioned before; false sales, reductions when there
>were none, offers which were not available.
ISTM that without an automatic till, the offence would take the form
of having an advertisement or a shelf-sticker that stated one price,
but the price stickers on the goods themselves showed something
different. e.g. a big sign in the window saying "Heinz Baked Beans
only 15p per tin" but with all the baked bean stock in the shop marked
at 19p.
ISTR that the standard response to such a thing was, "Sorry, we've
sold out of the reduced price stock, and only have the higher priced
stock left."
--
Cynic
|