Tesco misprice discussion area part 11

davet_3

ROFLMAO :rotfl:
Maybe you'll get a promotion from them and they'll let you collect the trolleys :T

TescoEmployee wrote:

I am an employee at Tesco and i just want to say a massive thank you for all the above information - I have alerted head office and will be monitoring this forum and e-mail out to all stores whenever there seems to be a pricing problem so that it can be recitified.

This forum is complete abuse of the Tesco refund system so i must say THANK YOU once again for all the detailed information regarding refunds, clubcard scams etc, - I look forward to reading your messages and e-mailing action to take to all Tesco stores in the UK.

orlwaysbroke

Hey TescoEmployee,

In my local shop collecting free packs of doritos - thanks for tip someone - it struck me ...

Now you've said that you are monitoring this forum, does that mean that you are going to be personally liable for any prosecutions by trading standards under the sale goods act - if you are aware of the unlawful prices that we are pointing out, then surely someone as importantant as you must be responsible for not rectifying the problems.

:eek:

FloFlo

Housemartin wrote:

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:

Taken from Consumer Direct.

"It is a criminal offence for traders to give a misleading price indication about goods or services. That applies in whatever way the price indication is given, whether written in a notice or leaflet or given verbally. For example, you may see a shelf edge price ticket showing £5 for the item, then you are charged £5.10 at the checkout. Another misleading price indication may be a price indicated on a leaflet, but you are charged at a higher price in the store.

However, a trader who mistakenly prices a product (for example, “28 inch widescreen television for £39.90” instead of £399) is not obliged to honour that price unless the transaction has already been completed. The trader must nevertheless take immediate steps to rectify the mistake."

We are all aware that r&r is an additional policy in addition to our rights but if they do not follow it through then they could fall foul of the ASA.

Housemartin_2

wireframe wrote:

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?

In contract no, because the offer isn't made untill you get to the till. Morally, it's a different story.
However, by having 2 prices up they've breached the Pricing Guidelines which state that prices should be clear and unambiguous. That's your redress (threat?)

Housemartin_2

FloFlo wrote:

Taken from Consumer Direct.

"It is a criminal offence for traders to give a misleading price indication about goods or services. That applies in whatever way the price indication is given, whether written in a notice or leaflet or given verbally. For example, you may see a shelf edge price ticket showing £5 for the item, then you are charged £5.10 at the checkout. Another misleading price indication may be a price indicated on a leaflet, but you are charged at a higher price in the store.

However, a trader who mistakenly prices a product (for example, “28 inch widescreen television for £39.90” instead of £399) is not obliged to honour that price unless the transaction has already been completed. The trader must nevertheless take immediate steps to rectify the mistake."

We are all aware that r&r is an additional policy in addition to our rights but if they do not follow it through then they could fall foul of the ASA.

Sorry, if i'm confusing people, but that's eactly what I'm saying. The remedy isn't in contract law, - it's through the mispricing regulations.

FloFlo

Housemartin wrote:

Sorry, if i'm confusing people, but that's eactly what I'm saying. The remedy isn't in contract law, - it's through the mispricing regulations.

I think you were probably the only one who would go to CS and discuss contract law, most of us in difficulty would discuss trading standards or mispricing regulations.

I have no background in law, why do companies have to abide by these mispricing reguations if they are not enforcable laws.

orlwaysbroke

But Housemartin,

Unless the cashier states "40 pence for the beans, 12 pence for the apple ... etc " then the contract involves a purchase of beans for 30p as agreed by the customer picking up the item with 30p on the SEL, and paying for it in good faith.

As soon as payment has been accepted the customer has paid over the odds, the retailer - under relevant legislation - has broken the law. This is why they offer R&R, because
a . it compensates the customer for financial loss, therefore putting it right,
and b. to keep customer sweet.

Housemartin_2

FloFlo wrote:

I think you were probably the only one who would go to CS and discuss contract law, most of us in difficulty would discuss trading standards or mispricing regulations.

I have no background in law, why do companies have to abide by these mispricing reguations if they are not enforcable laws.

I'd never use the contract arguement, but people do (I work in retail) and all I'm saying is that it immediately reveals a lack of knowledge to the CS.

ben500

Housemartin wrote:

Sorry, if i'm confusing people, but that's eactly what I'm saying. The remedy isn't in contract law, - it's through the mispricing regulations.

I'm afraid your wrong again, as the offer of r&r is part of their national advertising campaigns and made prior to contract being established it becomes part of the contract and is indeed enforcable under contract law if refused.

ben500

Housemartin wrote:

I'd never use the contract arguement, but people do (I work in retail) and all I'm saying is that it immediately reveals a lack of knowledge to the CS.

Your perception is not necessarily fact. You are indeed entitled to your opinion but on this occasion it just happens to be incorrect sorry.

At time of purchase and contract establishment it is agreed between the customer and the vendor that in the event an overcharge occurs the customer will receive the goods and the full price paid. If you have studied contract law you should be able to confirm that no condition can be made to the contract after establishment without the agreement of both parties, as such if Tesco refuse to refund and replace on an overcharged item they are effectively changing the terms of the contract already formed and if the customer refuses to accept the new terms they are in a position to challenge Tesco on the basis of the original contract.! And not on the basis of the new contract offered.
HTH