Tesco misprice discussion area part 11

FloFlo

ben500 wrote:

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.

I have no idea, but I agree with Ben if that means we get R&R.:rotfl:

DrFluffy

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.

LOL! And you think HO don't already monitor these forums... The way both HO and one CS put it to me, is that forums such as MSE save them a fortune and is cheaper than employing a 'price sifter' in each store to ensure things are correctly priced. For the price of a few freebees, they can offer R&R and keep an eye on the pricing situation, avoiding bad feeling with the majority of their shoppers when they do get mischarged repeatedly...

PS

Pringles were mis-scanning yesterday at Tesco Bank - yummmmm. Is it wrong to have three tubes for breakfast?

Housemartin_2

orlwaysbroke wrote:

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.

I'd like to think that R&R or R in most places was offered because of moral reasons But more likely it's offered because pricing regulations state that the retailer should deal with mispricing immediately.

FloFlo

Housemartin wrote:

I'd like to think that R&R or R in most places was offered because of moral reasons But more likely it's offered because pricing regulations state that the retailer should deal with mispricing immediately.

I think r&r is usually offered because they advertise it on a big board behind customer sevices.;)

biglugs

Morally, it's a different story.

We are talking here about a company which makes £1.1bn profit from us in 6 months, and which has SEVEN shops in the town where I live (they bought almost all the local convenience stores) and the population is less than 30,000 so not exactly a major city.
Tesco exists to fleece customers who have no choice other than to buy from them, and think absolutely nothing about shafting their suppliers or customers when the opportunity arises. They threaten, harrass and ban customers who complain about their illegal pricing schemes.
Where does morality come into it?? I for one have no trouble sleeping at night over the R&R that I got.

shoperholicnot

Housemartin wrote:

I'd like to think that R&R or R in most places was offered because of moral reasons But more likely it's offered because pricing regulations state that the retailer should deal with mispricing immediately.

offered because of moral reasons? is that why an awful lot of CS offer the difference first? I thought they brought in R&R to give themselves good publicity, especially with those trading standards bods and may I add, to minimise complaints against them

Mike_J

When is a price a contrcatual price? Like many people have said, no formal contract exists until the item as purchased. However consider the steps

1. the customer offers to pay the displayed price.
2. the cashier tills the item in but DOES NOT offer the customer at the higher price.
3. As part of tesco's contractual term they agree to sell you the item at the shelf/SEL price.

Result = Tesco breaches their terms of the contract and therefore must offer compensatory damages. the fcat is that the actual damges are specified in their term (full R&R).

Clasics

biglugs wrote:

We are talking here about a company which makes £1.1bn profit from us in 6 months, and which has SEVEN shops in the town where I live (they bought almost all the local convenience stores) and the population is less than 30,000 so not exactly a major city.
Tesco exists to fleece customers who have no choice other than to buy from them, and think absolutely nothing about shafting their suppliers or customers when the opportunity arises. They threaten, harrass and ban customers who complain about their illegal pricing schemes.
Where does morality come into it?? I for one have no trouble sleeping at night over the R&R that I got.

Not to mention that, if we can assume the findings of the Irish Govt in 1999 (average 3% overcharge on every trolley full they bought) are still true and apply to the UK today, allegedly half of that £1 billion figure could be argued is made up of overcharges...

Edit: The 3% figure bears no relation to my experience. My Tesco trolley rarely gets below an 85% overcharge rate...:rotfl:

blackcateddie

I've just bought three Louise Rennison books all stickered £3.97. Admittedly there were identical products on the shelf stickered at £4.97 but what right has Tesco's to sell all of them at the higher price?? If it wasn't for this website I wouldn't be checking my receipts and noticed, what about all the other customers that they cheat each day?
Which side of the moral argument is Tesco's now?

I worked for Boots as a sat girl 25yrs ago and the policy was still the same, we weren't allowed to have stock at two prices on the stand and you couldn't increase any prices in the shop but were allowed to take it out into the stock room and reprice it. How come Tesco's don't know this?
The answer is they do but somehow in amongst the multimillions proft they forgot to care. One question should be why haven't TS made an example of them??

pfpf

all this talk of T and TS, ASA, contract law etc...do T really give a stuff? do any organisations ever bother with such a big company? if they do, is there really anything that they can do that would really hurt T?

i mean £1.1billion in 6 months!!

the company is massive, alot of people on their payroll, official or not

we all know that big business and big money brings its own benefits when it comes to rules and regulations, would certain officials from various agencies/government really want to get involved?

would anyone do anything that would REALLY hurt T for their illegal activities?

these are all questions and open to discussion. just a thought! :rolleyes: