On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:09:10 +0000, MM wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:56:12 +0000, Alex Heney
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:31:48 +0000, MM wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:55:16 +0000, Alex Heney
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>And I agree with Cynic here. It isn't, without incurring exorbitant
>>>>cost.
>>>
>>>This is nonsense. The staff member has to get the price from
>>>SOMEwhere, so why not just get the CORRECT price? You, like Cynic,
>>>make the application of correct price labels seem like a climb up
>>>Mount Everest. It isn't. It's a mundane, everyday task that takes no
>>>effort whatsoever. Applying the wrong price is just laziness, or
>>>carelessness, or deliberate fraud on the part of stores to make their
>>>prices seem more competitive, knowing that the vast majority of
>>>shoppers never check their receipts. Even if they risk deliberate
>>>fraud, they have little to fear from TS, as we have seen in these
>>>posts, since they can always claim "'twas an error, guv!"
>>
>>Why the . did you snip most of my post?
>>
>>The parts which made it quite clear why I agree with Cynic, and make a
>>nonsense of your claims?
>
>My claim is not nonsense, it is common sense.
It is only common sense if you work on the basis that prices are only
ever created once for a given item.
The FIRST time a price is put on the shelf for an item, I agree that
it is very little more effort to put out a correct price than a wrong
one.
But when prices change it is very easy to miss putting a new price on
something (say you dropped one label without noticing, or one was
stuck to the back of another you put out).
In order to be sure this has not happened, you would need a second
person going around with a list of all the changed prices, making sure
that the new prices were all there.
I see a price label that
>seems like it's showing a reasonable price, i.e. not £5 for a £500
>telly, and I expect the store to honour it, not tell me AFTER purchase
>that (a) the price is wrong and (b) they are entitled to charge the
>till price anyway.
>
>Your getting your knickers in a bunch over a bit of snipping is
>risible. This thread is already over three hundred posts long.
It doesn't matter how long the tread is.
the point is that you took one sentence of mine out of context, and
made a reply to it that would not have made sense in context.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The penalty for bigamy is having two mothers-in-law.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |