Are “Price Promises” now worthless?

Alfie_E

See The Register’s article Currys price promise refusal backed by High Court. Are Dixons Store Group now free to make their price promise without ever having to honour it, provided they throws in an added extra to some, but not all (and possibly only very few), of the customers of a particular product?

ethansmum

I thought this was always the case.

I wanted a tumble drier about 4 years ago. I too had seen it elsewhere cheaper, but they refused to price promise because it was a different colour even though the rrp on both colours was the same.

trisontana

When you think about it, price promises are just unworkable. If you go alternatively to two different shops and get each one to lower the price against the other one, then eventually they will be giving you the item for free, or even paying you to take it away. Of course this will never happen. But I wonder if it's worth a try?

deanos

It has always been the case that the item has to be identical including colour,warranty and any extras that come with it, i think that is only fair as they have to be like for like.

Alfie_E

The problem with the ruling seems to be that any item is different, if you might get a different item. They could sell you an identical item and claim that it’s different, because they might have sold you an item that was different, but this time they didn’t. If you see what I mean.

angelavdavis

I always shopped at John Lewis years ago because they always claimed to be "Never knowingly undersold" and I heard of many people who actually challenged them and there was always a fair deal to be had.

Now I notice they no longer use this as their motto, I just don't think its doable now with the "scaled down" retailers online who can offer such low prices because they don't have the overheads.

Altarf

angelavdavis wrote:

I always shopped at John Lewis years ago because they always claimed to be "Never knowingly undersold"...

Now I notice they no longer use this as their motto,

Wrong, they still do.

http://www.johnlewis.com/Help/Help.aspx?HelpId=18#payment

Brindle_2

Am I missing the point.

Why didn't she just buy the machine from Comet?

I used to work in Sales at Comet and the ruling for a price match was that the items had to match exactly. If we offered a Vent kit as standard (as an example) then the comparitive item had to offer that as well. In this case it didn't, so they are NOT comparible.

Sorry but this women deserves what she gets. She should have bought it from Comet.

Curry's Price £159
Comet £119

Saving £40. Vent kits cost £10-£15. Saving £25-£30. or even use the old one if she had one!

Sorry but got no sympathy!

Time and hassle going to court, NOT worth it!

Quote:

When you think about it, price promises are just unworkable. If you go alternatively to two different shops and get each one to lower the price against the other one, then eventually they will be giving you the item for free, or even paying you to take it away. Of course this will never happen. But I wonder if it's worth a try?

Don't be so stupid. Its advertised price, not what some salesman offers.

This is just another example of someone being pathetic! I don't get what I want so I take someone to court.

What did she hope to achive, it was going to revolutionise the shoppingindustry as we know it.

Sorry if I have offended anyone but people who just go to court over nothing really annoys me!

PS. Happy New Year!

syledis

You used to work in sales for Comet. You didn't have to tell us, we would have worked it out by your attitude.

Couldn't you get a real job?

Brindle_2

The word was used to. I would never recommend anyone else to work for a company that sends people into depression!

Wig

Alfie_E wrote:

See The Register’s article Currys price promise refusal backed by High Court. Are Dixons Store Group now free to make their price promise without ever having to honour it, provided they throws in an added extra to some, but not all (and possibly only very few), of the customers of a particular product?

The trading standards lady wasn't too sharp and neither were her lawyers. and/or the reporting isn't done very well. Why didn't she ask the sales asst why s/he was refusing to honour the price promise? That's a basic first step wouldn't you say?
Why didn't she go to Comet to buy the one from them? Then she would have evidence they were the same or not the same. Another basic first step when your intention is to prosecute a company.

Had she done this the glaringly obvious difference would have been apparent i.e. one would have had a vent kit attached and the other wouldn't have it. Doh!

"the first time she heard that as an explanation, or even noticed mention of a vent kit on her receipt, was during her cross-examination." Not the sharpest tool in the box is she? To not notice that it said on the receipt a vent kit was included. :rotfl:

This is not the end of price promises, items have to be the same if they are not the same product then you don't get the price promise. Simple as.

What the report does not make clear is whether or not the price indication and information label on display in the shop told the customer what was included in the price.

What is also not made clear in the ruling or the report is whether or not this is allowed under law and whether or not in future all a shop has to do is supply an "extra" if the same customer who asks for a price promise then comes back to purchace the item or challenge them legally.

The problem with the ruling seems to be that any item is different, if you might get a different item. They could sell you an identical item and claim that it’s different, because they might have sold you an item that was different, but this time they didn’t. If you see what I mean.

The ruling and the way it was explained leaves a lot to be desired.

In future they might like to take a different approach, either ask what's included in the price or buy from Currys then go back and ask for a price promise if they have been given no vent. Then also buy the product from Comet to see if they are indeed identical.

However OP, I do see what you are saying, yes, and I commend you for noticing it, a lot of people repling here have not noticed this and I didn't either until you said so.........You are asking if the ruling implies is it ok for a shop to sell an item and to supply that item in various forms and guises under one price label, then if anyone comes back for a price promise they can be refused on the grounds that the item is sometimes different and sometimes not.

However I think that the ruling is saying because on THIS occasion the item was different the case is not made. That is not to say that on ANOTHER occasion when they supply without a vent (or whatever) the customer would not be entitled to a refund purely because sometimes they did supply vents. If you see what I mean But you are right in that none of this was explained very well at all!