Advice on misleading original prices in Laura Ashley sale

Rippins

......................................................................................................

dmg24

I think you are very unreasonable, and I would not offer you a penny.

The price tag is irrelevant, as you did not buy from a shop, and even if you had, it would have only been an invitation to treat. If Laura Ashley can prove that the item was originally £175 on their website, they have fulfilled their obligations.

The further reduction is your bad luck. Did they promise you that the price would not go any lower? Would you be offering them extra money if the price had increased?

It is people like you that give consumers a bad name.

scullster

"Up to 50% off sale" means that some items, may be only one, may have up to 50% knocked off - the 50% doesn't apply to each sale item.

I vaguely recall this being raised in the media earlier in the year, can't remember the specifics but the bottom line was:
buyer beware of sale savings, you shouldn't place too much emphasis on what the price was, but what it is now.
Check with your local trading standards for the specifics (there used to be rules about the pre sale price having been advertised for x days in y stores but I'm not sure that's still the case).

You also need to remember that the fair value of any item is what people are prepared to pay for it. You thought £140 was good value so you jumped in.

The fact that it has been reduced once more is tough luck I'm afraid. Many would agree that if the price had gone up from £140, you'd be well happy. Under these circumstances, Laura Ashley are not obliged to do anything at all. As there is no fault with the item, they are not obliged to even give you a credit note or a refund. The £20 discount brings the cost down to less than the current purchase price so their offer is more than generous.

I suspect your post will be flamed by a few regular posters on this forum so be prepared!

scullster

dmg24 wrote: »

I think you are very unreasonable, and I would not offer you a penny.

The price tag is irrelevant, as you did not buy from a shop, and even if you had, it would have only been an invitation to treat. If Laura Ashley can prove that the item was originally £175 on their website, they have fulfilled their obligations.

The further reduction is your bad luck. Did they promise you that the price would not go any lower? Would you be offering them extra money if the price had increased?

It is people like you that give consumers a bad name.

doh - just posted my response and then see you beat me to it. Well you've lit the fire, I've started fanning the flames......

Rippins

Gosh - dmg24 - I am shocked by your aggression.

As a first time poster on a website simply asking for advice I cannot believe that I have been attacked in this way! I am sure that this would not be the way that Martin would have intended these advice forums to be!

It is clearly a rather cliquey environment and I have clearly made a mistake in posting on here. What a shame that people cannot post a question on a website intended for that very purpose, without the 'regulars' attacking them!

:money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money:''Shame on you!!!!''

makapo

Rippins wrote: »

Gosh - dmg24 - I am shocked by your aggression.

As a first time poster on a website simply asking for advice I cannot believe that I have been attacked in this way! I am sure that this would not be the way that Martin would have intended these advice forums to be!

It is clearly a rather cliquey environment and I have clearly made a mistake in posting on here. What a shame that people cannot post a question on a website intended for that very purpose, without the 'regulars' attacking them

If you had a problem, people would probably try to help. But you're just annoyed at finding out you haven't got as much of a bargain as you thought. Who cares?

Rippins

I thought that asking about misleading original prices was a problem - it's certainly covered in the Sale of Goods Act. The stated original price of an item should surely be actually correct and not inflated to make the sale look better?

I don't think online bullying can ever be excused regardless of what you think of the question posted. Again, I am sure this is not what Martin intended.

dmg24

So because I have told you the truth, and the correct legal standpoint, I am a bully?

If I were you I would call Laura Ashley tomorrow and apologise for being so silly over the whole matter. You are in the wrong, they are not.

pulliptears

Having briefly read the OP before it was deleted, I will say I would be rather miffed if I had bought an item that I was told had been £175 only to find a printed tag for £150 stuck to it!

dmg24

pulliptears wrote: »

Having briefly read the OP before it was deleted, I will say I would be rather miffed if I had bought an item that I was told had been £175 only to find a printed tag for £150 stuck to it!

Remember that the label would have been for the store - there is nothing to stop a retailer charging differently in this way (although it is more usual for the store price to be more). Alternatively, it could be that the label is for the new 'full price', once all the sales are over - this is allowed. What would not be allowed was if the £175 price was never charged prior to the reductions.

Esqui

scullster wrote: »

"Up to 50% off sale" means that some items, may be only one, may have up to 50% knocked off - the 50% doesn't apply to each sale item.

I think it's actually 10% of the lines in an "up to 50% off" promotion must have the maximum reduction.