Tesco misprice discussion area part 11

Housemartin_2

FloFlo wrote:

Does it really matter. The only thing when R&Ring you need to be is overcharged. This means that you have paid more than is dsplayed on the product or the shelf. Nothing to do with offers to treat etc.

Not as far as R&R's concerned no. But there's been an increasing number of comments about the validity of SELs and if people are going to CS stating 'you have to sell me this at this price, it's the Law', they're incorrect. Any properly trained CS worker will know this and it's always advisable to go into negotiations knowing at least as much as you're opponent.

Clasics

MyUserNamesTaken wrote:

Which is an offence under the Price Marking Order 2004.

...and can lead to an UMLIMITED fine.

Housemartin_2

MyUserNamesTaken wrote:

Housemartin, your intentions are good. However, this has been explained to people time and time again on this thread. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to stop people making incorrect assumptions...

We could talk about the R&R policy being a unilateral offer, if you like (as per Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Company 1893).

Ah, someone else that did ONC contract Law
I did think for a while before I posted this as I couldn't believe that it hadn't been discussed on a site like MSE. But then i read so many posts from newbies (including me ) that I though it might be worthwhile.

FloFlo

Housemartin wrote:

There seem to be a lot more reference to, legislation, Trading Standards, and Tesco standing their ground a bit more just lately.
Just a thought, but if TS ever did investigate or prosecute Tesco under mispricing rules the firt thing they'd do is tighten their procedures and all these nice goodies would disappear.

There has been a lot of higher priced r&r lately and this often makes customer services more awkward when r&ring, but I think in most cases head office agreed the r&r. So it wasn't a case of Tesco standing their ground just individual stores not wanting to r&r. I am not defending Tesco's wrong pricing but it would be near impossible to keep every price in every store correct because of central price changes and human error. The reason there is so much focus on Tesco's misprices is not because they have more wrong prices than other supermarkets but because of their r&r policy.

Long live R&R and Tesco's constant mispricing - had a nice NTL twin DECT phone yesterday model 1301 44.95 - sel 37.95.

wireframe_2

Housemartin wrote:

When you take the beans to the checkout you are actually making the offer to buy, 'I offer to buy these from you for 30p.' The retailer accepts and the beans and money change hands. If the goods have been mispriced and the retailer spots it, he has every right to make a counter offer - 'I won't sell them at 30p. but I will sell them at 40p.' It's then upto you whether you accept this new offer. Once the goods and cash have changed hands however, the contract is complete so if the retailer recognises his mistake at this stage it's too late.

Ok, Fair enough, but if they have two separate and distinct prices for the same item on the shop, the retailer can't pick which on he sells to you at, by claiming the other is a "mistake" can he?
if I see beans advertised for 30p and again, legitimately for 40p, he is obliged to sell at the lower price, right?

MyUserNamesTaken

Housemartin wrote:

Not as far as R&R's concerned no. But there's been an increasing number of comments about the validity of SELs and if people are going to CS stating 'you have to sell me this at this price, it's the Law', they're incorrect. Any properly trained CS worker will know this and it's always advisable to go into negotiations knowing at least as much as you're opponent.

I think you'll find that people are approaching CS AFTER the purchase has been made. In other words, they've seen the invitation to treat (SEL) and gone to the till to purchase said item at that price. The cashier puts it through the till and the customer pays. After paying, the customer checks the receipt and sees they've been charged a higher price. This leads them to approach CS to argue that they've been overcharged. Unless the cashier points out the correct price at the time of charging the customer, it is fair and reasonable for the customer to assume that they will be charged the advertised price on the shelf.

FloFlo

Housemartin wrote:

Not as far as R&R's concerned no. But there's been an increasing number of comments about the validity of SELs and if people are going to CS stating 'you have to sell me this at this price, it's the Law', they're incorrect. Any properly trained CS worker will know this and it's always advisable to go into negotiations knowing at least as much as you're opponent.

Why would anyone go to CS before paying if contemplating R&R doesn't make sense. When you are R&Ring you don't want to pay the lower shelf price you want to be overcharged. Am I missing something?

Housemartin_2

Clasics wrote:

...and can lead to an UMLIMITED fine.

That's the reason for my post at the top of this page. If Tesco do take action, either to avoid prosecution or reduce losses, the Golden Goose will have died.

ben500

FloFlo wrote:

Why would anyone go to CS before paying if contemplating R&R doesn't make sense. When you are R&Ring you don't want to pay the lower shelf price you want to be overcharged. Am I missing something?

No your not but the op is.

Housemartin_2

FloFlo wrote:

Why would anyone go to CS before paying if contemplating R&R doesn't make sense. When you are R&Ring you don't want to pay the lower shelf price you want to be overcharged. Am I missing something?

There seems to be some misunderstanding on what I'm trying to say by posting this, (see a couple of other replies aying more or less the same thing)
All I'm trying to do is to make sure that when people approach CS they're more aware of their legal position. If the beans are priced 30p, scan at 40p and you pay it, you get the refund through Tesco's R&R policy not through a legal right (in contract law) as you've accepted the counter offer. So going to CS saying, 'you have to sell methis at 30p - it's the Law' - is wrong and, to be blunt,you'd immediately reveal that you don't know what you're talking about.
Won't happen with a can of beans but they might be slightly more reluctant to refund the cost of a plasma TV:rotfl: