Sainsburys expired offer - is this true?

Cardelia

Went to Sainsburys yesterday and on the way in, I saw a big banner advertising “buy any 6 Australian/New Zealand wines and get 25% off”. Great, I thought, and went to buy 6 bottles. However, when the cashier put them through the till, there was only the standard 5% discount for buying 6 bottles of wine and not a 25% discount. I queried this with the cashier, who didn't know about the offer and called over the checkout supervisor. She didn't know about the offer either but saved my transaction (I hadn't paid by this point) and called over a customer services rep.


The customer services rep basically said that the offer had expired and the advertising should have been taken down, but wasn't. She refused to let me have the 25% discount on the grounds that the offer had expired, even as a goodwill gesture to a loyal customer. I'm not bothered so much about the wine because I went to Majestic afterwards, but I'm intrigued by something else the customer services rep said. She was very insistent on finding out if I had left the store before querying the transaction. Apparently, if I had paid for the wine and left the grounds of the supermarket, then noticed I hadn't been given the 25% discount, she would have had no choice but to give it to me. But because I hadn't left the supermarket, she didn't have to give me the discount. Is this true? It seems very odd to me.


If it is true, and something similar were to happen again in future, would I be within my rights to knowingly say nothing at the checkout, walk off out of the supermarket and then come back to ask for the discount?

Crazy_Jamie

Cardiela wrote:

Apparently, if I had paid for the wine and left the grounds of the supermarket, then noticed I hadn't been given the 25% discount, she would have had no choice but to give it to me. But because I hadn't left the supermarket, she didn't have to give me the discount. Is this true? It seems very odd to me.


If it is true, and something similar were to happen again in future, would I be within my rights to knowingly say nothing at the checkout, walk off out of the supermarket and then come back to ask for the discount?

I think you might be misunderstanding the situation slightly. As is fairly common knowledge these days a shop does not have to sell items at an advertised price, even if that price is discounted. In this situation the supervisor was perfectly within her rights to not sell you the wine at the discounted rate. Whether or not there is an advertising issue is another matter entirely, but shouldn't concern you either way.

However, if you had bought those goods at the discounted rate, and the transaction had been completed, then they would not be allowed to go back on that. In other words, if the error with the deal expiring had not been spotted you would not have been obliged to return the wine and/or pay the difference to make up the full price. Because by that point the contract would already have been concluded. The whole point about leaving the store grounds sounds a little misconceived to me. It doesn't matter whether you have left the store or not; paying for the wine to the point where you have a receipt would be sufficient.

Cardelia

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

I think you might be misunderstanding the situation slightly. As is fairly common knowledge these days a shop does not have to sell items at an advertised price, even if that price is discounted. In this situation the supervisor was perfectly within her rights to not sell you the wine at the discounted rate. Whether or not there is an advertising issue is another matter entirely, but shouldn't concern you either way.

However, if you had bought those goods at the discounted rate, and the transaction had been completed, then they would not be allowed to go back on that. In other words, if the error with the deal expiring had not been spotted you would not have been obliged to return the wine and/or pay the difference to make up the full price. Because by that point the contract would already have been concluded. The whole point about leaving the store grounds sounds a little misconceived to me. It doesn't matter whether you have left the store or not; paying for the wine to the point where you have a receipt would be sufficient.

That was my understanding of the law as well. I was just confused by what I was told by the customer services representative, specifically the bit about leaving the store.

Everything I put above is what I was told in sainsburys. I suppose it's possible the customer services rep thought I had paid for the wine which might explain some of the confusion, but it still seemed a very odd thing to say.

Oh well, thanks for clarifying.

Mark_Hewitt

It wouldn't matter if you had left the store anyway, as you didn't get the offer. Besides if they *had* given your the offer and you had paid for it and they had accepted it and you lifted the items off the checkout, then that's it, they can't go back on it then. Leaving the store has nothing to do with it.

williham

This is to the letter of the law but not good customer services and I wouldn't expect it of Sainsburys, ring their customer services and they'll probably send you a voucher.

pinkshoes

I guess it depends on the individual store.

I bought a large box of beer a few weeks ago that was advertised at half price, but when I checked my receipt after paying, I noticed I'd been charged full price. I took it to CS, who went to check the shelf (I took the last box), and agreed that the sign did say half price, so they issued me a part refund.

taxiphil

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Whether or not there is an advertising issue is another matter entirely, but shouldn't concern you either way.

Why shouldn't it concern the OP? A criminal offence has been committed by Sainsburys (Consumer Protection Act 1987) so I'd say any witness to that offence should report it to the authorities just as they should report any other offence they may witness, like theft or assault for example.

And don't underestimate how seriously the courts view this offence -Sainsburys have in the past been clobbered with a £19,000 fine for doing the very same thing:

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/1034

It's regrettable that Sainsburys didn't have the goodwill to honour the discount on this occasion by way of a "thank you" for the OP bringing the matter to their attention and potentially saving them from another expensive criminal conviction.

Crazy_Jamie

taxiphil wrote: »

Why shouldn't it concern the OP? A criminal offence has been committed by Sainsburys (Consumer Protection Act 1987) so I'd say any witness to that offence should report it to the authorities just as they should report any other offence they may witness, like theft or assault for example.

If the OP is actually in a line of work whereby they would be concerned with the enforcement of such a law, or perhaps is some kind of crusader for justice as a part time hobby (or retired, as I expect the gentleman in the article was, and therefore has nothing better to do) then fair enough. But for the rest of us there is a line to be drawn when the literal rule of the law overrides practicality. Personally I have neither the time nor inclination to attempt to go on a one man mission to ensure that a supermarket receives a criminal conviction for what is probably a genuine error.

Though by all means I do encourage you to follow your own advice, and expect that you will be contacting the OP to find out which store this is, at which point you will swiftly travel down there in order to establish whether any evidence of wrongdoing remains. Then a full report should be prepared for the relevant authorities. Of course this will take up your own time, but what's a little effort when the law of the land is being held to randsom by a malicious conglomerate?

Let me know how you get on with that.

taxiphil

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

If the OP is actually in a line of work whereby they would be concerned with the enforcement of such a law, or perhaps is some kind of crusader for justice as a part time hobby (or retired, as I expect the gentleman in the article was, and therefore has nothing better to do) then fair enough. But for the rest of us there is a line to be drawn when the literal rule of the law overrides practicality.

I don't think spending a few seconds firing off an e-mail to Trading Standards is quite the big deal you're making it out to be - it's just the behaviour of a good citizen. You'd presumably report it if you observed a pickpocket in action? Well this offence is no less serious; it's arguably far more serious given the sheer amount of illicit profit Sainsburys could make if such signage went unchallenged.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Personally I have neither the time nor inclination to attempt to go on a one man mission to ensure that a supermarket receives a criminal conviction for what is probably a genuine error.

But you do have the time to write on a consumer forum and criticise those who moot the idea of complaining about a company? I find that a confusing and contradictory set of priorities.

(N.B. As a legal man you'll know that 'genuine error' is a bit of an oxymoron in the case of strict liability offences, although I will concede there is a due diligence defence in this Act)

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Though by all means I do encourage you to follow your own advice, and expect that you will be contacting the OP to find out which store this is, at which point you will swiftly travel down there in order to establish whether any evidence of wrongdoing remains. Then a full report should be prepared for the relevant authorities. Of course this will take up your own time, but what's a little effort when the law of the land is being held to randsom by a malicious conglomerate?

Let me know how you get on with that.

That's a silly suggestion. Of course it would be disproportionate if I did such a thing. The whole point of a forum like this is that we share information and ideas with each other, so my earlier post was to advise the OP (and anyone in the same situation) of a few facts, should they wish to report it themselves.

Crazy_Jamie

taxiphil wrote: »

I don't think spending a few seconds firing off an e-mail to Trading Standards is quite the big deal you're making it out to be - it's just the behaviour of a good citizen. You'd presumably report it if you observed a pickpocket in action? Well this offence is no less serious; it's arguably far more serious given the sheer amount of illicit profit Sainsburys could make if such signage went unchallenged.

I know my post went against the idilic attitude that good citizens should have, but I'm just being practical. There are times when matters should be taken further, and times when they should be allowed to slide even because it just saves time and/or money and/or stress. I consider this occasion to fall into the latter category as far as the OP is concerned. Yes, in theory an e-mail to Trading Standards is a couple of minutes job. My issue is that I find that the scale of issues that people will become concerned with indicates a widespread attitude rather than an isolated decision. In other words, whilst this may be a relatively small issue, getting hung up on all the small issues takes a lot of time and stress, and for the average person I would therefore simply recommend not bothering. Again, I know that's not idilic. But I do think it's practical.

taxiphil wrote:

But you do have the time to write on a consumer forum and criticise those who moot the idea of complaining about a company? I find that a confusing and contradictory set of priorities.

Not at all. I post on this forum in my spare time, and I dare say that I enjoy it. Besides, my aim of coming into this thread was not to criticise you. You just happened to make a critique worthy post that crossed my path and I thought I'd stop to comment

taxiphil wrote:

(N.B. As a legal man you'll know that 'genuine error' is a bit of an oxymoron in the case of strict liability offences, although I will concede there is a due diligence defence in this Act)

Kudos for the observation, though from your other posts on this site I would expect nothing less of you. As you say though, there is a due diligence defence.

taxiphil wrote:

That's a silly suggestion. Of course it would be disproportionate if I did such a thing. The whole point of a forum like this is that we share information and ideas with each other, so my earlier post was to advise the OP (and anyone in the same situation) of a few facts, should they wish to report it themselves.

Of course it was silly. I was using hyperbole. And certainly I wouldn't think of doing anything that would prevent you from posting such information. I just reserve my right to disagree with your suggestions as to its application