Tip: Beware 3 for £5 at M&S

Money_User

Legal_Academic wrote: »

So where M&S place a large sign over the Italian range saying "3 for 2", and the average shopper buys 3 pastas and 3 sauces thinking she'll get 1 expensive sauce and 1 cheap pasta free, her "economic behaviour has been materially distorted by the offer" and the offence is complete as soon as M&S credit her with only 2 cheap pastas.

But the sign will always have the offer clarified in small print which TS will be happy with.

This is why every retailer isn't fined umpteen times a year which should happen if you're right but you haven't covered small print in your argument.

Azari

Money_User wrote: »

But the sign will always have the offer clarified in small print which TS will be happy with.

This is why every retailer isn't fined umpteen times a year which should happen if you're right but you haven't covered small print in your argument.

Well, "Legal Academic" specifically covered that:

"To clarify, it is no defence for M&S to say the customer should have read the small print ("cheapest item free"). The law specifically states that if the average consumer would have bought more of something because of a sign they noticed on the shelves, and the deal they thought they were getting is not honoured, then the offence has been committed."

I don't know if that is correct, though. I'd never heard that they cannot use 'small print' as a defence.

Legal_Academic

Azari wrote: »

Well, "Legal Academic" specifically covered that:

"To clarify, it is no defence for M&S to say the customer should have read the small print ("cheapest item free"). The law specifically states that if the average consumer would have bought more of something because of a sign they noticed on the shelves, and the deal they thought they were getting is not honoured, then the offence has been committed."

I don't know if that is correct, though. I'd never heard that they cannot use 'small print' as a defence.

Exclusion clauses (small print) that companies rely on against consumers are increasingly being struck out by the courts where they are not made abundantly clear (http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=11149 and http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=10508).

However in the M&S example above, you need look no further than the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The small print is actually of no relevance here. The only relevant point is the average shopper's impression of the deal on the shelf in front of them. If the average shopper thinks from seeing the "3 for 2" offer that 3 pastas and 3 sauces will get you one of each free, and they buy more as a result, then M&S are automatically in breach of the regulations by failing to provide exactly that. It makes no difference that the small print says something else, unless the average shopper happens to have their magnifying glass handy and reads that too.

Azari

Legal_Academic wrote: »

Exclusion clauses (small print) that companies rely on against consumers are increasingly being struck out by the courts where they are not made abundantly clear (http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=11149 and http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=10508).

However in the M&S example above, you need look no further than the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The small print is actually of no relevance here. The only relevant point is the average shopper's impression of the deal on the shelf in front of them. If the average shopper thinks from seeing the "3 for 2" offer that 3 pastas and 3 sauces will get you one of each free, and they buy more as a result, then M&S are automatically in breach of the regulations by failing to provide exactly that. It makes no difference that the small print says something else, unless the average shopper happens to have their magnifying glass handy and reads that too.

That's good to know. Particularly the bit about small print being struck out by the courts.

I get sick to death of hearing of sharp practice by various companies only to have some smug git pompously declare that there's nothing wrong: 'They should have read the small print'.

zenmaster

Ilona wrote: »

Well I'm confused as to how anyone can afford to buy food at M & S because I can't.
Ilona

How is 3 for £5 at M&S more expensive than 3 for £5 at Tesco?

Spiritman_2

zenmaster wrote: »

How is 3 for £5 at M&S more expensive than 3 for £5 at Tesco?

lol. Good call. But I suppose it's the fact that £5 at M&S gets you smaller quantities of food, albeit better quality, than at Tesco. So if you're buying for bulk, M&S looks expensive. I would assert, however, that you get the same nutritional value per £ at both. At Tesco it's bigger, at M&S it's tastier.

mynameisdave

I remember Sainsburys used to do multibuy discount on reduced items so if you had £3 items 2 for £5 and they were reudced to £1 because they were going out of date you would still save £1 for buying 2. Stopped a long time ago though.

Fairly sure this is standard across all stores.

varndeanian

Spiritman wrote: »

M&S have a 3-for-£5 offer on some deli items. However, if you take four such items to the till, then, regardless of which order they're scanned in, the till will always select the cheapest three when applying the discount. To get the best deal, pay for the dearest three separately. I imagine this applies at other stores, too.

Yes - I found a similar thing at M&S today. I purchased 3 identical pasta items on a 3 for 2 offer and three identical pasta sauces on a similar offer. At the till two of the cheaper pastas items resulted in the discount. As a result my pasta sauces were much more expensive than a similar purchase at another supermarket! As each item referred separately to a '3 for 2' offer (and there was no warning on view about multiple purchases across products) I consider this to be very dubious marketing practice. I will be going back to M&S tomorrow to see if they are willing to offer a refund on the whole of my purchases. Have since noticed posts from others on this subject with useful advice on the 'Unfair Trading Regulations'. Will also complain the Consumer Direct - or whatever they are called these days.

Azari

varndeanian wrote: »

Yes - I found a similar thing at M&S today. I purchased 3 identical pasta items on a 3 for 2 offer and three identical pasta sauces on a similar offer. At the till two of the cheaper pastas items resulted in the discount. As a result my pasta sauces were much more expensive than a similar purchase at another supermarket! As each item referred separately to a '3 for 2' offer (and there was no warning on view about multiple purchases across products) I consider this to be very dubious marketing practice. I will be going back to M&S tomorrow to see if they are willing to offer a refund on the whole of my purchases. Have since noticed posts from others on this subject with useful advice on the 'Unfair Trading Regulations'. Will also complain the Consumer Direct - or whatever they are called these days.

Please let us know the outcome.

fluffnutter

The tills aren't programmed properly. I bought a salad the other day - buy a salad get a free bottle of water. I took both to the self-service till (beep-beep), it charged me for both. Lazy programming in this instance. In the case of the OP, it's deliberate of course, naughty but understandable; the tills have got to jump one way so they've decided to jump in the way that maximises profits.