Advice Needed - False Advertising at Currys

rsykes2000

The invitation to treat has been around for over a century.

Laz123

unholyangel wrote: »

Its been that way for at least the past 12 years or so that i know of personally. The seller can sell for the advertised price but this would be a goodwill gesture on their part rather than a legal obligation.

Although it is common for supermarkets to refund the difference + a small "gift"/double the difference if there has been a pricing error. But theres quite a bit of difference between £120 and 12p

Thanks. I thought so. 12 years ago is about 4 years after I left the advertising industry. The retailers I used to work on, MFI, Sainsbury's, GUS, Texas Homestores, Gardenstore, Homebase etc, had to get their pricing precise otherwise they WOULD HAVE TO SELL AT THAT PRICE or be taken to court. And sometimes they were. So the law has changed.

rsykes2000

Laz123 wrote: »

Thanks. I thought so. 12 years ago is about 4 years after I left the advertising industry. The retailers I used to work on, MFI, Sainsbury's, GUS, Texas Homestores, Gardenstore, Homebase etc, had to get their pricing precise otherwise they WOULD HAVE TO SELL AT THAT PRICE or be taken to court. And sometimes they were. So the law has changed.

I am fairly sure the law hasn't changed, they sold at the misprice as if they were consistently done by trading standards for mispricing it would have been legally costly and getting costlier every time. They have so many prices to check it was easier and cheaper for them to sell one at the misprice and then simply remove the SEL until a new one was printed with the correct price.

stebiz

Laz123 wrote: »

Thanks. I thought so. 12 years ago is about 4 years after I left the advertising industry. The retailers I used to work on, MFI, Sainsbury's, GUS, Texas Homestores, Gardenstore, Homebase etc, had to get their pricing precise otherwise they WOULD HAVE TO SELL AT THAT PRICE or be taken to court. And sometimes they were. So the law has changed.

No you have it wrong. They did not (and do not) have to sell at that price. No court could even force them to.

You are getting confused with Trading Standards taking them to court for mis pricing. Often a retailer would sell an item, at the mis price, so they weren't reported to Trading Standards. However over the years the more spineless TS has become, many no longer seem worried!!

Meepster

Laz123 wrote: »

Thanks. I thought so. 12 years ago is about 4 years after I left the advertising industry. The retailers I used to work on, MFI, Sainsbury's, GUS, Texas Homestores, Gardenstore, Homebase etc, had to get their pricing precise otherwise they WOULD HAVE TO SELL AT THAT PRICE or be taken to court. And sometimes they were. So the law has changed.

The only change to the law was when SOGA was introduced in 1979, but even before that time no retailer HAD to sell goods for an advertised price. I think your time would be better used googling "The Sales of Goods Act" and "invitation to treat"

The only time a retailer will get any penalty for mis-pricing goods is when they either do it constantly or knowingly. The only time a company could be taken to court was if they were in breach of contract, but as no contract is formed until goods are paid for (or dispatched in the case of internet/telephone sales) then no law is broken if the price on the shelf doesn't match the price at the point of sale...

Mankysteve

Laz123 wrote: »

I'm sorry to contradict this misconception but I was in retail advertising for over two decades and a retailer had to sell an item at the advertised price by law. Somewhere down the line the law has changed.

It comes under that old boots case. I'm sure someone will know the details. The contract is not formed until money changes hands. It there to really to protect retailer from going bust from mistakes. Say a small time retailer had accidentally marked a very expensive item down to penny if lots of people realised that for a small retailer that could easily make them go bankrupt

suited-aces

Laz123 wrote: »

I'm sorry to contradict this misconception but I was in retail advertising for over two decades and a retailer had to sell an item at the advertised price by law. Somewhere down the line the law has changed.

Think you're perhaps betraying your age here, the current law dates back to a case from 1953 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_Great_Britain_v_Boots_Cash_Chemists_%28Southern%29_Ltd
Note, wikipedia link is just for convenience, I was taught this by a law professor. (hated that module mind you!)

suited-aces

Mankysteve wrote: »

It comes under that old boots case. I'm sure someone will know the details. The contract is not formed until money changes hands. It there to really to protect retailer from going bust from mistakes. Say a small time retailer had accidentally marked a very expensive item down to penny if lots of people realised that for a small retailer that could easily make them go bankrupt

Seen your post after posting mine, but the link I gave is to that case you mention.

somethingcorporate

Laz123 wrote: »

Thanks. I thought so. 12 years ago is about 4 years after I left the advertising industry. The retailers I used to work on, MFI, Sainsbury's, GUS, Texas Homestores, Gardenstore, Homebase etc, had to get their pricing precise otherwise they WOULD HAVE TO SELL AT THAT PRICE or be taken to court. And sometimes they were. So the law has changed.

I see you're still spouting the same old stuff:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2503415

please give some support for what you are saying because as far as the educated people in this forum can see you're talking rubbish!!

unholyangel

Laz123 wrote: »

Thanks. I thought so. 12 years ago is about 4 years after I left the advertising industry. The retailers I used to work on, MFI, Sainsbury's, GUS, Texas Homestores, Gardenstore, Homebase etc, had to get their pricing precise otherwise they WOULD HAVE TO SELL AT THAT PRICE or be taken to court. And sometimes they were. So the law has changed.

I think you mistake what i meant. I was merely saying that to my own personal recollection, i could vouch the law had remained unchanged the past 12 years. As for previous to that, well i'm only 26 now so i would have been too young to remember