Deceptive advertising

Anne3333

Perhaps my error then BaddieBasher. I merely used the ONLY section that was used by The Guardian in one of their articles relating to unfair trading!

Chester_Draws

Not sure what the law states on size of lettering etc. but it sounds like they have broken the law anyway on another factor.

Most people I have spoken to bought a lot of items at 20% off, or 10% off, but very few found ANYTHING at 50% off.

The law states:
1.9 Sales or special events:
1.9.3 Do not use general notices saying, e.g. “half price sale” or "up to 50% off" unless the maximum reduction quoted applies to at least 10% of the range of products on offer at the commencement of the sale.

So, if there were 5,000 lines in the sale, at least 500 had to be 50% off.

Bamber19

Chester_Draws wrote: »

Not sure what the law states on size of lettering etc. but it sounds like they have broken the law anyway on another factor.

Most people I have spoken to bought a lot of items at 20% off, or 10% off, but very few found ANYTHING at 50% off.

The law states:
1.9 Sales or special events:
1.9.3 Do not use general notices saying, e.g. “half price sale” or "up to 50% off" unless the maximum reduction quoted applies to at least 10% of the range of products on offer at the commencement of the sale.

So, if there were 5,000 lines in the sale, at least 500 had to be 50% off.

They'd also likely be the first to go though such that anyone attending an hour or 2 into the sale will only find empty 50% shelves but plenty of 10 and 20% off shelves.

Tozer

Bamber19 wrote: »

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.

Actually its been quoted in a whole range of cases dealing with misleading price indication orders and trade descriptions.

Tozer

mymatebob wrote: »

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.

What a pointless post.

Thanks for the appraisal. Not correct though. :rotfl:

Anne3333

Originally Posted by Chester_Draws
Not sure what the law states on size of lettering etc. but it sounds like they have broken the law anyway on another factor.

Most people I have spoken to bought a lot of items at 20% off, or 10% off, but very few found ANYTHING at 50% off.

The law states:
1.9 Sales or special events:
1.9.3 Do not use general notices saying, e.g. “half price sale” or "up to 50% off" unless the maximum reduction quoted applies to at least 10% of the range of products on offer at the commencement of the sale.

So, if there were 5,000 lines in the sale, at least 500 had to be 50% off.

They'd also likely be the first to go though such that anyone attending an hour or 2 into the sale will only find empty 50% shelves but plenty of 10 and 20% off shelves.

Under The Advertising Standards Authority's CAP Code Rules
15.4 Price claims such as 'up to' and 'from' should not exaggerate the availability of benefits likely to be obtained by consumers.
If they are no longer available, the signs should surely be removed?

baddiebasher

Firstly, the main guidance on this is the OFT's guide to pricing, which no longer has legal effect (and was pretty rubbish anyway).

And I wouldn't give a second thought to what the papers say on legislation or consumer related matters. They are more often than not, at best, misleading. Usually thay are just down right wrong or completely fabricated.

mymatebob

Tozer wrote: »

What a pointless post.

Thanks for the appraisal. Not correct though. :rotfl:

You stated that it was your job to pick up on detail, yet by this poster (as in the Woolies one - not me) you admit you were misled.

How were you misled?
By not picking up on the detail contained within the poster i.e. "up to"?

If that is the case then my assertion still stands.

If you were misled in some other way then I do apologise.

Tozer

mymatebob wrote: »

You stated that it was your job to pick up on detail, yet by this poster (as in the Woolies one - not me) you admit you were misled.

How were you misled?
By not picking up on the detail contained within the poster i.e. "up to"?

If that is the case then my assertion still stands.

If you were misled in some other way then I do apologise.

I couldn't give a stuff about your assertion.

Be honest - which parts of that display poster in the picture can you actually read?

baddiebasher

Even on that poor photograph, I can make out the "upto" bit.

The problem is that some people choose to read what they want to in statements, and ignore inconvenient bits.

And an element of common sense is needed. Do people need signs for everything or can they be expected to excercise a bit of judgement themselves and decide whether something is or is not a good bargain?