time based price alterations

arcon5

mo786uk wrote: »

Its not hard to look up the law and here it is

3 Capacity to buy and sell.

(1)Capacity to buy and sell is regulated by the general law concerning capacity to contract and to transfer and acquire property.
(2)Where necessaries are sold and delivered [F1to a minor or] to a person who by reason of [F2...mental incapacity or]... drunkenness is incompetent to contract, he must pay a reasonable price for them.
(3)In subsection (2) above “necessaries” means goods suitable to the condition in life of the [F1 minor or other] person concerned and to his actual requirements at the time of the sale and delivery.



Therefore that does seem to fit with what the OP is saying, if you are drunk and go into a shop and they charge you £20 for cigarettes when everyone else is paying £6 then that is not on. Its a moot point anyway as that is not what is happenign in this situation.

texranger - your situation is also different because you are chagring different prices at different shows - not displaying 2 prices on the same product at the same time but where the price changes depending on the time of day.

Since when have purchasing cigarettes become a 'necessity'?

You also missed point 3 which is an equally important point... i've added it in for you.

So for example, if somebody needed insulin to survive and the pharmasist quadrupled the price for the individual because of their current deteriating condition then it would be classed as unlawful. If a retailer increases the price of all goods to all customers after a certain time then they are in no way taking advantage of their mental incapacity.

shaun_from_Africa

The cost of taxi from my local town centre to my house is normally about £10 or £12, but if I get a taxi at 11 or 12pm when all of the bars are closing this price rises to about £16.
I've yet to hear of a single taxi firm being prosecuted for this.

I know of one particular firm of cabs who will charge double if the passengers are drunk.
This probably comes from experience in knowing that there is a reasonable chance that after the journey they will have to take time to clean out the car before continuing to use it.

arcon5

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

The cost of taxi from my local town centre to my house is normally about £10 or £12, but if I get a taxi at 11 or 12pm when all of the bars are closing this price rises to about £16.
I've yet to hear of a single taxi firm being prosecuted for this.

I know of one particular firm of cabs who will charge double if the passengers are drunk.
This probably comes from experience in knowing that there is a reasonable chance that after the journey they will have to take time to clean out the car before continuing to use it.

Don't forget new years ever or christmas day = double rates.

I worked a couple of new years eves in a private hire vehicle and you would expect to take around £400 that night! And the city I drove in isn't even a major city.

mo786uk

arcon5 wrote: »

Since when have purchasing cigarettes become a 'necessity'?

You also missed point 3 which is an equally important point... i've added it in for you.

So for example, if somebody needed insulin to survive and the pharmasist quadrupled the price for the individual because of their current deteriating condition then it would be classed as unlawful. If a retailer increases the price of all goods to all customers after a certain time then they are in no way taking advantage of their mental incapacity.

Are cigarettes a necessity? Well it depends on how you interpret the law - they may be if the person is desperate for a fag. I believe that section is probably influenced somewhat by case law. Might be wrth checking out the case Nash v Inman

"If a retailer increases the price of all goods to all customers after a certain time then they are in no way taking advantage of their mental incapacity."

That is not in dispute but we are talking about (in the context of this thread) is whether applying dual pricing stickers and only applying the higher price to drunk people would be a breach of the SOGA (because they are too smashed to make sense of what is happening).

The issue here really is whether customers are being mislead. if the price is clear upfront then clearly there cannot be any misleading going on.

As per the OP - it is not necessay 'illegal' to not comply with most parts of the SOGA. Whether an offence has been commited or not owuld ocme under some other criminal law.

arcon5

mo786uk wrote: »

Are cigarettes a necessity? Well it depends on how you interpret the law - they may be if the person is desperate for a fag. I believe that section is probably influenced somewhat by case law. Might be wrth checking out the case Nash v Inman

Do you care to provide a link? The only one I can find relates to a libel case and the other an australian case.
Cigarettes are not a neccesity to the "conditions of life", in the same way heroin or coffee isn't.

"If a retailer increases the price of all goods to all customers after a certain time then they are in no way taking advantage of their mental incapacity."

That is not in dispute but we are talking about (in the context of this thread) is whether applying dual pricing stickers and only applying the higher price to drunk people would be a breach of the SOGA (because they are too smashed to make sense of what is happening).

Ops asking if the increase in overall prices is unlawful because after that time they are serving dominantly drunken people. But they are not putting drunken people at a disadvantage compared to their sober customers.

The issue here really is whether customers are being mislead. if the price is clear upfront then clearly there cannot be any misleading going on.

No it is not.
"double priced on the shelf, with the time variations clearly labled"
There is no mentioned whatsoever of customers being mislead :huh:

As per the OP - it is not necessay 'illegal' to not comply with most parts of the SOGA. Whether an offence has been commited or not owuld ocme under some other criminal law.

So if it is not illegal, your in effect saying it is legal to fail to comply with consumer protection legislation?

whats next, their human rights brought into question?

Owain_Moneysaver

fthl wrote: »

not at all, it says that they must sell something for a reasonable price.

No. The cited law means that the buyer, who in these circumstances is unable to enter into a legally binding contract, must still pay a reasonable price for the goods i.e. he does not get to keep them for free.

This clause is protection for the seller, not the buyer.

arcon5

To look at it another way, they are offering a discount to customers purchasing before a certain time.

chunkychocky

George_Michael wrote: »

Spivvo, (my local source) charges me £35 for a 1g baggie of the best Columbian. However, if he is approached by an unknown drunk looking to score he will often stiff them for £60 for the same quantity.
It's all down to supply and demand. Should what he does be illegal? I don't think so.

OMG I snorted tea across my computer screen when I read that. Bloomin' brilliant reply. :rotfl:

mo786uk

arcon5 wrote:

Do you care to provide a link? The only one I can find relates to a libel case and the other an australian case.
Cigarettes are not a neccesity to the "conditions of life", in the same way heroin or coffee isn't.

Nash v Inman is a case to do with capacity to contract - in this case a young person buying goods and then not paying for them - its probably not that relevant to this discussion TBH. The reaso nI mentioned that case is because s3 of the SOGA seems to use similar wording to that case and may have been influenced by it.

http://www.law-essays-uk.com/resources/revision-area/contract-law/cases/nash-vs-inman.php

Ops asking if the increase in overall prices is unlawful because after that time they are serving dominantly drunken people. But they are not putting drunken people at a disadvantage compared to their sober customers.

I haven't disagree with that.


No it is not.
"double priced on the shelf, with the time variations clearly labled"
There is no mentioned whatsoever of customers being mislead :huh:

As I said, I don't think there is any misleading going on - but the OP clearly thinks there might be. They seem to be under the impression that the SOGA makes it an offence to take advantage of drunk people. This is not the case and the shop can dual charge as long as they are being clear about their prices upfront and not in some way attempting to rip off only drunk people.


So if it is not illegal, your in effect saying it is legal to fail to comply with consumer protection legislation?

What I am saying is that not complying with the SOGA for most (if not all) parts is not directly a criminal offence - but offences may occur under other pieces of legislation and therefore you would need to check what they say before working out if an offence has been committed.

Responses in black.

NCISROCKS

mo786uk wrote: »

Responses in black.

...so no offence by the shop owner has been committed?