Toby Carvery charged sunday prices on a monday

pianoplayer

baza52 wrote: »

I also cant get my head round the...

probably the only truism you have pontificated over...

I think this thread is at it's natural end.. until I resurrect it with the outcome,.. for all our sakes? :beer:

Equaliser123

Azari wrote: »

It sounds like the exact opposite.

They have very clearly stated that they agree that the company have misbehaved.

And quoted gibberish in terms of law.

Equaliser123

Azari wrote: »

You really do need to learn about contract law as it relates to retailing.

The answer to that question is so basic that I'm amazed anyone who's been on this site more than a couple of months doesn't know the answer.

In any case, as I've explained TWICE, it's irrelevant in this instance because as soon as they accepted the order without making certain that the customer was aware of a variation from the initial invitation to treat then the contract was accepted on the initial terms offered.

I really don't understand why you are having so much difficulty with this.

I have to say, that is utter tripe.

Equaliser123

Azari wrote: »

Too right.

I studied contract law at university and I would be very doubtful that I would have a usable understanding had we not been taught by and had the opportunity to discuss with, a qualified, legal, professional.

There is a major problem with context when trying to rely on google, when it comes to matters of law.

I think you misunderstood some of the lectures.

Anyway, this isn't about blaming your lecturer.

pianoplayer

Equaliser123 wrote: »

And quoted gibberish in terms of law.

What gibberish exactly? I think from your comments you have issues other than those discussed?

Well I have an update, long phone call with TS at the end of today, I have to have a think how to phrase it in case some get a bit excitable, but it gave me food for thought..

baza52

spill the beans then.
Im sure we can handle the news.

Going4TheDream

I find it laughable that someone is making such a fuss over a few quid on a meal, and unless the OP is a 'crusader for others' then lets keep it in proportion.

I get the point that perhaps he should have been informed and wasnt or the signs were not clear or so he says, invitation to treat and all that.

But really, this incident was over two weeks ago, any one seriously agrieved by it all would have been on the phone day one and getting it sorted with the company.

Not makiing out it is the biggest swindle since we stopped using the gold standard or something.



I would imagine this is a very isolated incident as seemingly most poters on here are aware of the sunday prices on bank holiday monday thing, which would lead

Going4TheDream

I want to know if there will be a court case, and who will play the OP in the Hollywood blockbuster that is bound to follow

After all there is nothing really like making a drama out of a non crisis

Going4TheDream

NBLondon wrote: »

pianoplayer also has a point about tourists not necessarily being aware of this. I've been caught out abroad by not knowing it was a public holiday and places were closed.

In all fairness tourists are much more likely to ask the price before buying, what that has to do with you beinng caught out because you didnt realise it was a public holiday and some where was closed I have no idea!

Azari

Equaliser123 wrote: »

And quoted gibberish in terms of law.

Equaliser123 wrote: »

I have to say, that is utter tripe.

Equaliser123 wrote: »

I think you misunderstood some of the lectures.

Anyway, this isn't about blaming your lecturer.

Congratulations.

Three posts and you've said nothing more than that you don't agree - and have made no attempt to explain what you seem to think you know.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens when TS gets back to OP.