Burger King

molerat

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

But the offer price you paid, you accepted. That is part of the problem with the current social experiment, where every one wants to be some WAG.

I would get trading standards into your school, because that is the bottom of the problem, where they failed not only to give you a grip with mental arithmetic, but forgot domestic education as well.

When you go into the supermarket do you know excactly how much the bill will be. 8 of us went for lunch yesterday and ordered our own meals from the waitress. Do you expect the lucky one who picked up the tab to know how much they would be paying.

BurgerKing have not fulfilled their legal obligation, as advertised outside the store, to provide a free meal. Maybe the op was a bit lax in their mental arithmatic but accepted the offer based on the presumption that the till had correctly calculated the price in line with the advertised offer. Deliberately not honouring the offer is an offence.

shellsuit

They should have given you 3 free meals in that case, if they wouldn't do anything about money already paid.

Complain!

Equaliser123

molerat wrote: »

BurgerKing have not fulfilled their legal obligation, as advertised outside the store, to provide a free meal. Maybe the op was a bit lax in their mental arithmatic but accepted the offer based on the presumption that the till had correctly calculated the price in line with the advertised offer. Deliberately not honouring the offer is an offence.

From a legal perspective, that is simply not correct.

molerat

Deliberate misleading advertising is an offence. The error was pointed out before leaving the premises and was told that they do not honour the advertised offer and would not refund. I think TS would agree offences have been committed.

Equaliser123

molerat wrote: »

Deliberate misleading advertising is an offence. The error was pointed out before leaving the premises and was told that they do not honour the advertised offer and would not refund. I think TS would agree offences have been committed.

Lots of things wrong with what you said.

Firstly, it is not an "offer". If anything, it is an invitation to treat.

Misleading advertising is not, per se, an offence. If there is a misleading pricing indication then this MAY be an offence.

To show that BK 'deliberately' misled will be nigh on impossible.

Your comment that "deliberately not honouring the offer is an offence" is wrong.

Lokolo

as above ^^

When I worked in Domino's we didn't give BOGOF to people unless they asked (although I would mention it if they sounded nice). The menu's state 'please mention offer when ordering'.

Equaliser123

Lokolo wrote: »

The menu's state 'please mention offer when ordering'.

In which case, that may well be a condition of the offer....

Freddie_Snowbits

molerat wrote: »

When you go into the supermarket do you know excactly how much the bill will be.

Yes, I take a shopping list!

Take todays shop, Some beer for me tonight, bit of salad, pack of crisps Budget around £7!

Shop came to £6.03. Sorted

NEXT

samhuzz

I didn't actually go up and order the food, my partner and MIL did while I sat with the children. So I didn't hear how much they had paid. I have emailed BK to see what they have to say about it, so as soon as I hear anything I'll let you know.

bingo_bango

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Lots of things wrong with what you said.

Firstly, it is not an "offer". If anything, it is an invitation to treat.

Misleading advertising is not, per se, an offence. If there is a misleading pricing indication then this MAY be an offence.

To show that BK 'deliberately' misled will be nigh on impossible.

Your comment that "deliberately not honouring the offer is an offence" is wrong.

This is of course invitation to treat. To say however that to show that BK deliberately misled is 'nigh on impossible' has no basis. This would constitute a Reg 9 offence under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs, in relation to Reg 5(2)(a) - Misleading Actions referring to Reg 5(4). I think this offence is quite easily made on the strength of OP's statement, especially as they made the transactional decision to eat there on the basis of this offer. The sales assistant also (rather helpfully) clarified the position.
I would also argue that this could consitute a banned practice as per Sch 1 of the same Regs, but as no similar cases have yet been to court, I could not commit to pursuing that angle.