Deceptive advertising

Peridot1

I was also one of those 'idiots' who fell for it and half of the town by the looks of it, it was packed out, people were pushing and shoving each other!!
My boss told me about it and let me finish work early to take advantage of the offer. I still got a few bargins though:j

Tozer

Well, on Blacksheep's analysis, there are lots of stupid customers out there.

That photo is interesting. It is CLEARLY designed to be misleading. The fact that it appears to have misled a lot of people is pretty conclusive evidence.

Blacksheep1979

Tozer wrote: »

Well, on Blacksheep's analysis, there are lots of stupid customers out there.

There are a lot of stupid people out there

Tozer wrote: »

That photo is interesting. It is CLEARLY designed to be misleading. The fact that it appears to have misled a lot of people is pretty conclusive evidence.

Yup it's evidence that people don't read before jumping in with both feet. The more you make excuses for people and mollycoddle them the more dumbed down our society will be with less people taking responsibility for their actions.

famous.last.words

Well... the Christmas spirit just flows out of some people doesnt it!?!

There is actually not a correlation between stupidity and bad eyesight, or blindness, or being trusting.

As Tozer has completely rightly said, the Lord Denning ideology was to prevent people being tripped up by advertising. It can happen to the best of us, and certainly is not about stupidity.

Plus, the Woolworths sale was poor, and other than my sentiments for the history of the store and the staff, I for one won’t be shedding a tear when it closes. Most, if not all, of the toy sets were more expensive than Argos and Asda even with the 20% taken off.

Very unimpressed with Woolworths, and the bigoted, judgemental attitude of some of the people here.

Tozer

famous.last.words wrote: »

Well... the Christmas spirit just flows out of some people doesnt it!?!

There is actually not a correlation between stupidity and bad eyesight, or blindness, or being trusting.

As Tozer has completely rightly said, the Lord Denning ideology was to prevent people being tripped up by advertising. It can happen to the best of us, and certainly is not about stupidity.

Plus, the Woolworths sale was poor, and other than my sentiments for the history of the store and the staff, I for one won’t be shedding a tear when it closes. Most, if not all, of the toy sets were more expensive than Argos and Asda even with the 20% taken off.

Very unimpressed with Woolworths, and the bigoted, judgemental attitude of some of the people here.

I couldn't agree more.

I'm not one to fall for 'tricks' and I read everything to the point of dullness. Its my job to pick up on detail.

But I was misled. That photo really does sum it up.

Bamber19

Denning's red hand rule isn't exactly a great example in this situation. The red hand rule is at it's most basic, "The more unreasonable a contract term is the greater attention must be brought to it." It's not really about advertisments.

mymatebob

Tozer wrote: »

I couldn't agree more.

I'm not one to fall for 'tricks' and I read everything to the point of dullness. Its my job to pick up on detail.

But I was misled. That photo really does sum it up.

That photo sums nothing up at all

If it is your job to pick up on detail then - you are not very good at it.

Blacksheep1979

Tozer wrote: »

That photo really does sum it up.

A slightly out of focus picture of an instore sign from 8m+? The op said they'd seen the sale advertised before they got there so these signs have little to do with attracting people in have they?

Anne3333

New Unfair Trading Regulations
"the advertisement would be misleading if it has hidden material information or provided it in a manner which is unclear or ambiguous and as a result caused the consumer to take a transactional decision that he or she would not otherwise have taken.""
The sign seems pretty 'unclear' to me!

baddiebasher

And then read the rest of the legislation to realise just what that actually means.

You really should not quote one part of legislation when there are many other bits that refer to it or are referred to taht would change the meaning of the example posted.

That paragraph alone contains one ambiguity - it basically says "it is misleading if it is misleading". Great.