"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
news:96a1924e1607281f787dc2faefd62bdd@dizum.com...
> Alex Heney wrote in
> news:u8q2l49kc5vchsej30lgf3ejf338c5bhcj@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:10:06 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Johnno wrote in
>>>news:6rasqqFccutU2@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>> We took our child to see a 'Santa' today.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the outside of the Grotto, there was no indication of any
>>>>> pricing required to meet 'Santa'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we got inside, the tariff list was at the far end of the
>>>>> queue, around three feet before 'Santa'.
>>>>>
>>>>> As there was a reasonable expectation that no charge would be
>>>>> levied, as no charge was listed on either the exterior or entrance
>>>>> 'queue system', would the event runners be legally able to enforce
>>>>> requirement for payment?
>>>>>
>>>>> For those who are interested, we did not pay, we simply left
>>>>> without visiting this 'Santa'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks
>>>>>
>>>> Bloody hell, how old are you - and you still believe its free to
>>>> visit Santa?
>>>
>>>The fact that no tariff information was visable on the exterior or
>>>queue points of the interior of these premises gave a reasonable
>>>expectation that no charge of any type would be payable, nor any
>>>donation requested.
>>>
>>
>> No it didn,t, IMO.
>>
>> It may have given rise to an "unreasonable" expectation of that. But
>> no reasonable person would have expected it to be free, unless
>> advertised as such.
>
> Regardless of the legal rights or wrongs, this has now gone to Trading
> Standards.
>
> Will keep you posted.
>
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting. From what I gather, the tarrif was
displayed before the point that you would have committed to any contract or
arrangement. You thus had the opportunity to walk away before the point of
making an offer for the service - which I believe you in fact did.
|