Tesco misprices and discussion thread 11

dontdothatagain

Could we please keep the thread on topic??

Tony5101

Crikey - that was the most attention that this thread has seen for months!

I remember the good old days, when we'd have at least 2-3 pages of mis-prices per day.
Is Mr T getting better, or is it that our bargain spotting eyes are starting to decline?
More bargain opportunities please!

dizzybuff

Gilks, R v [1972] CA

^[Theft - belonging to another - money paid by mistake - dishonesty]
D was overpaid winnings by mistake by a bookmaker. D knew that the bookmaker had made a mistake, but he kept the money. D said that "bookmakers are a race apart." It would be dishonest if your grocer gave you too much change and you kept it, but it was not dishonest in the case of a bookmaker.

Held: It was correct to invite the jury to put themselves in the defendant's position and decide whether he thought that he was acting dishonestly or honestly.

Cairns LJ

"On the face of it the defendant's conduct was dishonest: the only possible basis on which the jury could find that the prosecution had not established dishonesty would be if they thought it possible that the defendant did have the belief which he claimed to have."

Guilty

Before you start I know it states bookmakers . The fact of the casr is the dishonesty , and at the end of the day the police would use this case law as fact.. the dishoesty of the customer at the time of payment , ie paying too little .... but that customer must know it is too little that they are paying .

Okay theres your evidence.

Just thought id add a bot more ... just to keep your interest .

BFG_2

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


You're right, we're all wrong.

Have you thought about writing to the Daily Mail and exposing this scam.

Now that we've all admitted we're wrong, there's no further discussion needed.

So could you go away please and leave us all to steal in peace?

dizzybuff wrote: »

Gilks, R v [1972] CA

^[Theft - belonging to another - money paid by mistake - dishonesty]
D was overpaid winnings by mistake by a bookmaker. D knew that the bookmaker had made a mistake, but he kept the money. D said that "bookmakers are a race apart." It would be dishonest if your grocer gave you too much change and you kept it, but it was not dishonest in the case of a bookmaker.

Held: It was correct to invite the jury to put themselves in the defendant's position and decide whether he thought that he was acting dishonestly or honestly.

Cairns LJ

"On the face of it the defendant's conduct was dishonest: the only possible basis on which the jury could find that the prosecution had not established dishonesty would be if they thought it possible that the defendant did have the belief which he claimed to have."

Guilty

Before you start I know it states bookmakers . The fact of the casr is the dishonesty , and at the end of the day the police would use this case law as fact.. the dishoesty of the customer at the time of payment , ie paying too little .... but that customer must know it is too little that they are paying .

Okay theres your evidence.

Just thought id add a bot more ... just to keep your interest .

Keith

dizzybuff wrote: »

Regardless of if it is a retailer mistake . At the point that you pay , if you are aware that the price on the till is lower than the actual retail price . Then you committ an offence, If you pay for that item and attempt to leave the store.

There is several things here that have to be proved .

Intent to perminantly deprive - This in this case would be the monetry value left to pay on the product .

Dishonesty - Here this is where the knowingly part comes in. If you dont notice it when it is going through the till and the misprice is not noticed by a memeber of staff then there is no dishonesty.

I know ( although confused as dazza.mk) states how it works if the cutomer is overcharged or not given a promotional offer by the retailer.

It all about knowingly paying a lower price . If you didnt know about it no problem. At the point you are paying for the product the item still belongs to the retailer . If at the point of payment you know you are paying the wrong price compared to the advertised price. Then you could have problems..

Okay . Thats it there you go ...

Thank you for reading ..

As said before this is just my knowledge and opinion..

Prices on the shelf are an invitation to treat.

Price at the till is an offer from the retailer to enter into a contract of sale at that price.

There is no offence by the conduct of accepting an offer made by a retailer.

jessicar

dizzybuff wrote: »

But as Im saying the item was correctly priced on the shelf .. then charged under at the till

Actually I think you'll find that as SEL's have to be printed and manually placed by staff, and the price charged at the till is updated via computer programs, in the vast majority of cases, it's the SEL which is the incorrect price.

The reason retailers like Tesco refund people is because of the number of times this happens as their staff haven't updated SEL's quickly enough or have left old tickets on the shelf.

The price update on the system (which shows on the till) is what generates the printing of a new SEL - and retailers are legally bound to put that ticket out asap so the price shown on the shelf and paid at the till are the same. But that often doesn't happen.

Therefore how could anybody actually be expected to know which one is the 'wrong' price?

If you don't understand how retail systems work, why bother arguing?

taxiphil

Technically in law, it's the customer who makes the offer to purchase and the store who decides whether to accept that offer, so:
1. Item is scanned at till, £1 appears on the display as an indication of what the store might be willing to accept if it so chooses (still nothing binding at this stage - either party could back out)
2. Customer offers £1 for item
3. Store accepts offer

But it all boils down to the same principle, i.e. offer and acceptance takes place at the till, therefore the elements of theft can't possibly be established because the store has had the opportunity to accept or reject the customer's offer of £1.

LizzieS_2

jessicar wrote: »

Actually I think you'll find that as SEL's have to be printed and manually placed by staff, and the price charged at the till is updated via computer programs, in the vast majority of cases, it's the SEL which is the incorrect price.

The reason retailers like Tesco refund people is because of the number of times this happens as their staff haven't updated SEL's quickly enough or have left old tickets on the shelf.

The price update on the system (which shows on the till) is what generates the printing of a new SEL - and retailers are legally bound to put that ticket out asap so the price shown on the shelf and paid at the till are the same. But that often doesn't happen.

Therefore how could anybody actually be expected to know which one is the 'wrong' price?

If you don't understand how retail systems work, why bother arguing?

taxiphil is right - offer & acceptance are done at the till.

Due to the number of items you may purchase, you don't really get the chance to check the till price is the price you were really expecting to pay - for this reason, supermarkets normally back down if you show you were misled into the price of 1 item off your list by the SEL on display.

Princess_Coupon

When I have gone to the till and discovered an item is cheaper, I have always assumed the till was correct and the SEL was wrong. The tills are programmed centrally and will cover all stores so are fairly unlikely to be incorrect the SEL is added by hand and could be OOD, moved by a customer, etc etc

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Tesco Finest Emus buy one get one free £3.99




Surely a mistake!