Tesco misprice discussion area part 11

MyUserNamesTaken

Nesima wrote:

They have never made you an 'offer to buy their goods', they display goods that are available to buy at a given price, you then make them an offer to buy them. They can then choose whether to accept your offer or not. That is contract law, and that is why they don't have to sell you goods (legally) that they realise are mis-priced.

Nesima, please don't talk about stuff of which you obviously have very little understanding or knowledge. Read The Consumer Protection Act 1987. Contact Law isn't the only thing that applies here, you know.


Just to make it easier for you:

Misleading Prices

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 makes it a criminal offence to give consumers a misleading price indication about goods, services, accommodation (including the sale of new homes) or facilities.
It applies however you give the price indication - whether in a TV or press advertisement, in a catalogue or leaflet, on notices, price tickets or shelf-edge marking in stores, or if you give it orally, for example on the telephone. The term "price indication" includes price comparisons as well as indications of a single price.
Following a consultation, in October 2005 the DTI published a revised Code of Practice for Traders. The new guidelines have been updated to cover new ways of trading including the Internet and factory outlets.
Contact your local authority trading standards department if you have a query about enforcement of the law or how the law might apply in a particular case. Contact DTI on policy issues only, not enforcement or individual cases.

Coupon-mad

In reply to derektrophy I know you know what you are doing, but if it were me I would have been to CS within minutes of the purchase. And I wouldn't be planning another trip, even for a family member or friend to do it, because you could both end up with 2 referrals to HO and it will get very tricky.

I think you've been v. lucky to find 2 stores with the posters up and the products in stock, count your blessings and get back down there and tell CS that, over the weekend, you've spotted the offer didn't come off, that's what I would do.

What I don't get is how you will explain why a 'normal' unsuspecting cutomer would have taken a photo with a newspaper held up to it, on the day of purchase, then 'not noticed/reported' the overcharge on the same day. I don't think you will be able to use the photo now at all...

You won't (now) be able to say 'I have just spotted I've been overcharged' AND later use the photo to back up any HO claim. You could have done if you'd gone to CS straight away.

leadhead

MyUserNamesTaken wrote:

Wow! I am impressed. Can you translate his post for the rest of us, please?

Doesnt look as though the OP is going to re-explain.

The way i read it is....he goes into a store...If the signs are there and the discount doesnt come off..he buys the combi offer, and leaves the store after taking a photo of the sel(without approaching CS).....in the hope that he can go back later and get another one............(he mentions lack of stock)....

He hopes his illegally taken photo will be evidence if management twig on to the misprice and remove the sel...................or thats the way i read it.

Nesima

MyUserNamesTaken wrote:

You haven't actually read the thread, have you? QUOTE]

Originally Posted by itscheapandiwantit
Trading standards would not accept "it's last weeks poster" as an excuse, it was an offer to purchase that you chose to accept... R&R i believe

Your assumption/accusation is incorrect, I have read the thread and was responding to the incorrect statement statement assertion in 'itscheapandiwantit's' post.

wlfc1

Can we have a seperate misprice console thread please, this thread is getting bogged down with the subject and I think we are even getting phanhom spots now.

I would also add that this thread is to discuss misprices and not the policy, the name of thread was changed to emphasise this.

itscheapandiwantit

leadhead wrote:

Doesnt look as though the OP is going to re-explain.

The way i read it is....he goes into a store...If the signs are there and the discount doesnt come off..he buys the combi offer, and leaves the store after taking a photo of the sel.....in the hope that he can go back later and get another one............(he mentions lack of stock)....

He hopes his illegally taken photo will be evidence if management twig on to the misprice and remove the sel...................or thats the way i read it.

Which fully backs up his reasoning that he knows what he's doing ? :rolleyes:

itscheapandiwantit

Nesima wrote:

MyUserNamesTaken wrote:

You haven't actually read the thread, have you? QUOTE]

Originally Posted by itscheapandiwantit
Trading standards would not accept "it's last weeks poster" as an excuse, it was an offer to purchase that you chose to accept... R&R i believe

Your assumption/accusation is incorrect, I have read the thread and was responding to the incorrect statement statement assertion in 'itscheapandiwantit's' post.

I do not purport to be a legal expert, merely a consumer understanding consumer rights :rolleyes:


Edit.. i assume you have legal training Nesima ....as many professionals have no common sense

MyUserNamesTaken

Nesima wrote:

Your assumption/accusation is incorrect, I have read the thread and was responding to the incorrect statement statement assertion in 'itscheapandiwantit's' post.

His wording may not have been great, but the fundamental point he was making was totally correct. It's not correct due to Contract Law. It's correct due to The Consumer Protection Act, which I doubt you've even bothered to look at. I've given my reasons as to why his opinion is correct. Unfortunately, you seem completely unable to comprehend what anyone here is saying. I still say that you haven't read the thread. Had you read it, you'd have seen in the very first post a link to the DTI's website explaining The Consumer Protection Act and what it means to the consumer. If you had read that, you wouldn't be sitting here wittering on about Contract Law.

MyUserNamesTaken

itscheapandiwantit wrote:

Edit.. i assume you have legal training Nesima ....

Don't be daft!

Nesima

MyUserNamesTaken wrote:

Nesima, please don't talk about stuff of which you obviously have very little understanding or knowledge. Read The Consumer Protection Act 1987. Contact Law isn't the only thing that applies here, you know.

Are you saying that the 1987 Act overides Contract Law.

What I have explained concerning contract law is true.

Why to you attempt to undermine my statement of the law by making a personal attack ? 'please don't talk about stuff of which you obviously have very little understanding or knowledge.'

You don't know me or what my understanding of these matters are !
I would kindly ask you to refrain from attempting insults.