Tesco misprice discussion area part 12

rozeepozee

Constantine wrote:

I understand the discussion, I read and took part in it at the time.

The first refund, where the item was retained, is in compensation for the over charge.

The second refund is in exchange for the product.

He is getting his money back once for the product. The other incident is seperate and is down to Tesco's policy.

I can see where you're coming from. I'm just not sure it's technically correct to suggest you can have a 'refund' on an item which has not been paid for...? What exactly is being 'refunded'?

rozeepozee

!!!!!!_Dastardly wrote:

As for returning goods for which an R&R has previously been given this is covered by the own advertised promise, and the R&R should not effect those rights given by the promise, or they are in effect changing the contracted agreement at the time of R&R which the R&R promises not to do. Although, this are is more 'subjective'. But certainly if goods are defective, not fit for purpose, etc, there is no question, exchange or refund.

Thanks for that DD. The bit that is unclear for me is that the OP was not returning them due to a defect etc. I didn't think consumer protection law entitled you to a refund if there was nothing wrong with the product - which seems to have been the case here.

Despite the legalese, I still haven't got my head round R&R in practice! I've only ever done one, recently, and it was a complete fluke from checking my receipt and noticing that the discount hadn't come off rather than using the Misprices thread. Haven't yet managed to get it together enough to be taking a list of prices down to Mr T's and comparing SELs. I'm assuming that this is what needs to be done??? And I still haven't figured out: are the mispriced items shop specific or do they apply to the whole national Tesco computer database?

thelurch

Richie23 wrote:

Is it me or is the misprice thread drying up...remember the days when there used to be pages full in 2 days.. now your lucky to get 2 misprices a day!!

Walked out of two tescos last night without a bean free!!

Warning...

Did try the selection boxes tho..Cadburys as buy 2 for £5 and the Large cadburys had a white SEL..but this scanned correctly and offer applied!

i have a had a cracking week, my 3rd in total following this forum, £210 all from one day this week , MP3 Player, lindt chocs and sirloin steak.... and the weeks not over yet!!

point3

I agree with rozeepozee. On what grounds are "second" refunds being claimed? I doubt that the truth - "I would rather have the money" - constitutes a sufficient right to the money.

A refund is a return of money paid - if nothing has been paid for the goods, then what are you asking to be returned? This is fraud, plain and simple.

Richie23_2

FloFlo wrote:

You're going to the wrong stores I've had a cracking week.

Maybe we should see if we can get a button added like the "Thanks" one but " Thanks for rubbing it in" button.

There are quite a few r&r er's around south wales now. My own fault for teaching my mate as well.. only showed 1 on the friday night and by the Monday he had 2 radios & 3 games..must remember to pick my share up!

But glad if i'm not getting then then someone else is picking up the misprices and checking there receipts and getting full refund!!

flyer

How long before R&R gets into the Oxford English Dictionary?? :rotfl::rotfl:

thelurch

Im in agreement on this one, I have no problems getting an R+R all the time Tesco have this generous offer, it is their little sweetener for us to go away pleased and forget that we have actually been overcharged.

But to get an R+R on something then return it to get money back again wouldnt sit right with me.

The MP3 player I got this week, CS never wrote refunded on it but Im not going to return it, if I decide to sell it elsewhere like fleabay then fine but Im not getting my money back from tesco a second time

leadhead

rozeepozee wrote:

Hmm this little spat caught my eye. I'm going to be a bit of a legal dweeb and muscle in on your discussion here if that's ok? I'm not making any judgments on the ethics of it, just trying to look at it objectively from a legal standpoint. This isn't my area of expertise by the way so I'm trying to remember my contract/consumer law from many years ago at law school.

Your statutory rights are that you are entitled to a refund if you are sold the item at a price greater than that at which you contracted to buy it. Tescos is in breach of contract, so the contract should be rescinded and you should be compensated for your loss. Your loss is the price you paid for it. Hence the refund. If you then go back and recoup the money again, I suspect this could come under the offence of obtaining property by deception (not theft) because you have already been compensated for your loss and are gaining a pecuniary advantage/financial reward when you claim again. Just my thoughts. I may be wrong.

So far as the ethics are concerned, it would be a bit rich if Mr T attempted to take the moral high ground. I don't consider any of the big supermarkets to be particularly ethical! However, obtaining property by deception is a criminal offence, as well as an ethical issue.

We did this thoroughly on the ethics thread about a fortnight ago I believe.

This thread isnt for ethics, if you wish to go onto the ethics thread to "go over it again"....I'm sure the contributers then will respond again....but it might be far easier if you just read all the posts on that thread.

Constantine is a Tesco Employee in a management position......so his opinions above (although his, and in no way Tesco's policy) must carry a lot of water.

N20Y1D

point3 wrote:

.

A refund is a return of money paid - if nothing has been paid for the goods, then what are you asking to be returned? This is fraud, plain and simple.

Would you describe overcharging as fraud?

Dick_Dastardly_3

rozeepozee wrote:

Thanks for that DD. The bit that is unclear for me is that the OP was not returning them due to a defect etc. I didn't think consumer protection law entitled you to a refund if there was nothing wrong with the product - which seems to have been the case here.

Yes, the main question regarding the refund of a previously R&Red item revolves around how the original contract terms have been changed by the R&R. In my opinion the R&R must not effect the original contract terms (and the customary implied contract terms (return within 28 days), or it has in effect changed the original contract, which is not what R&R is designed around, and in fact says it does not effect rights, which it does if it changes. It is designed around protecting Mr T from a good kick up the backside from TS via the CPA (misleading price indications), by giving the R&R they can say to TS, 'look it was a mistake the customer is no worse off' slap each other on the backs and toddle off.

An R&R is not a 'refund' of a product in its truest sense, you still have the product, and the rights that go with it. Some of those 'implied statutory rights' and also advertised being the ability to return the product for refund in its original condition within 28 days.