Lyle and Scott

neilmcl

Rylynn wrote: »

Harty that is rubbish, they have been inundated with orders realised they can make more money so stuck the prices back up this morning.

It's called supply & demand, simple economics I'm afraid. They're in business to make money they aren't a registered charity.

wealdroam

sairmay wrote: »

I have just admitted that I used the wrong terminology.

What, you mean instead of writing "this is the legislation",
you meant to write "this is my opinion"?

Ah, that's ok then.

McKneff

sairmay wrote: »

I may not have used the correct vocabulary but you knew what I was tryng to say. Yes different companies/websites have different terms and conditions to cover them for mispricing. I don't need that to google anything as I am not having any trouble with a company and mispricing but thanks anyway

You used the word 'legislation' which means 'the law'
All is was saying is that there is no law. I know what you said.
You should say what you mean.

Rylynn

I am not going to be rude, and am not here to start a row, but can those of you who think L&S can do this please read the following, and then explain that to me again, as in my book they cannot do what they have done. Below is from the Trade Description act site.. which is what I thought covered this type of thing.

Tesco has been the subject of numerous cases in relation to the Trade Description Act. One case was relating to the sale of discounted washing power within their stores. The company had advertised the price of the product on posters within the supermarket and when they ran out of the product they began stocking the shelves with regularly priced stock. The store manager failed to remove the posters advertising the lower price and customers were being charged full price. Tesco was found guilty of breaching the regulations within the Trade Description Act 1968. Initially the company had attempted to blame human error for the pricing but the company was still convicted.

This was a landmark case and hugely influenced the reforms of the Act which occurred in years to come. Tesco initially strongly denied any wrong doing in relation to the Act and attempted to avoid prosecution by stating a similar mistake had occurred.

So are you still saying I am wrong? if so please explain why as it would be helpful.

vuvuzela

You are comparing shop prices to Internet ones. Regulations for buying in a shop are different to buying online as to when the contract is satisfied. See Do shops have to sell at the advertised price?

McKneff

Youre the one who is being defensive and even to the point of pompous, (I made a mistake but I'm not going to apolgise for it) I'm off now anyway, Ive made my point, and I'm bored.

Toodle oo.

bris

Rylynn wrote: »

I am not going to be rude, and am not here to start a row, but can those of you who think L&S can do this please read the following, and then explain that to me again, as in my book they cannot do what they have done. Below is from the Trade Description act site.. which is what I thought covered this type of thing.

Tesco has been the subject of numerous cases in relation to the Trade Description Act. One case was relating to the sale of discounted washing power within their stores. The company had advertised the price of the product on posters within the supermarket and when they ran out of the product they began stocking the shelves with regularly priced stock. The store manager failed to remove the posters advertising the lower price and customers were being charged full price. Tesco was found guilty of breaching the regulations within the Trade Description Act 1968. Initially the company had attempted to blame human error for the pricing but the company was still convicted.

This was a landmark case and hugely influenced the reforms of the Act which occurred in years to come. Tesco initially strongly denied any wrong doing in relation to the Act and attempted to avoid prosecution by stating a similar mistake had occurred.

So are you still saying I am wrong? if so please explain why as it would be helpful.

Yes you are still mistaken, rather than being wrong. Tesco have been found guilty of deliberately misleading the customer by using the underhand tactic above. They believe this was a deliberate case of misrepresrenting the product rather than a mistake. The fact they have done this on numerous cases means they went one to far and are being rightly punished for it.
The case on this forum has seen the advertiser make mistakes they are entitled to rectify, this can mean cancelling the sales. If they do this the same way Tesco did then of course the trading standards would want to know why, and possibly take action against them.

Rylynn

bris wrote: »

Yes you are still mistaken, rather than being wrong. Tesco have been found guilty of deliberately misleading the customer by using the underhand tactic above. They believe this was a deliberate case of misrepresrenting the product rather than a mistake. The fact they have done this on numerous cases means they went one to far and are being rightly punished for it.
The case on this forum has seen the advertiser make mistakes they are entitled to rectify, this can mean cancelling the sales. If they do this the same way Tesco did then of course the trading standards would want to know why, and possibly take action against them.

Thank you very much for explaining that in plain English to me as at least I can now make heads and tails of the law surrounding this.

Lyle and Scott have not cancelled any of the sales to my knowledge the order placed last night is being honoured, and due to my emails after placing my order this morning they have now phoned me and are honouring the 25 per cent discount that the actual descriptions were still showing before I pressed pay and found them to then be more than I expected.

All I can say is that I hardly ever complain, but I was not a happy bunny this morning, and it was not the money as we are only talking about £13 quid or so, it was the principle as I saw it.

As a company they have said a mistake had been made the sale items should have all been 25 per cent with the extra 50 per cent off til 11.59 tonight with the code given here and on the front of the L&S site, however many items went on at 50% off plus the 50%, so my sons trainers last night went from £50 down to £25 then the extra 50% made them £12.50 for all those who ordered before this morning they really got bargains, so if you see L&S all over Ebay next week being sold you know why!

I would like to add one thing, the customer service that I got from L&S was excellent in the end, I got a reply to my 4 emails within 3 hours saying they would honour the 25% and also could they phone me, she was a lovely lady, but I did tell her to tell her website team to go and look again as they still had items showing one amount and when you tried to pay the amount went up by 25%, these were items that had 4 or 5 colour choices so the web team had not altered them all, feel very sorry for whoever made this blunder, as Martins link this morning had over 16 thousand hits, equate that into monetary terms of the 25 percent lost by L&S and it could add up to a huge amount.

:TWell done L&S for not pulling the orders already placed, and :rotfl:for once it paid for me to moan!

:money:And Martin thanks for all the advice, tips and great offers you send out in your newsletter, have been around here now since 2008 and still come back and read things, and take advantage from the newsletter deals.

Looksguywalker

Rylynn wrote: »

Thank you very much for explaining that in plain English to me as at least I can now make heads and tails of the law surrounding this.

Lyle and Scott have not cancelled any of the sales to my knowledge the order placed last night is being honoured, and due to my emails after placing my order this morning they have now phoned me and are honouring the 25 per cent discount that the actual descriptions were still showing before I pressed pay and found them to then be more than I expected.

All I can say is that I hardly ever complain, but I was not a happy bunny this morning, and it was not the money as we are only talking about £13 quid or so, it was the principle as I saw it.

As a company they have said a mistake had been made the sale items should have all been 25 per cent with the extra 50 per cent off til 11.59 tonight with the code given here and on the front of the L&S site, however many items went on at 50% off plus the 50%, so my sons trainers last night went from £50 down to £25 then the extra 50% made them £12.50 for all those who ordered before this morning they really got bargains, so if you see L&S all over Ebay next week being sold you know why!

I would like to add one thing, the customer service that I got from L&S was excellent in the end, I got a reply to my 4 emails within 3 hours saying they would honour the 25% and also could they phone me, she was a lovely lady, but I did tell her to tell her website team to go and look again as they still had items showing one amount and when you tried to pay the amount went up by 25%, these were items that had 4 or 5 colour choices so the web team had not altered them all, feel very sorry for whoever made this blunder, as Martins link this morning had over 16 thousand hits, equate that into monetary terms of the 25 percent lost by L&S and it could add up to a huge amount.

:TWell done L&S for not pulling the orders already placed, and :rotfl:for once it paid for me to moan!

:money:And Martin thanks for all the advice, tips and great offers you send out in your newsletter, have been around here now since 2008 and still come back and read things, and take advantage from the newsletter deals.

Maybe reconsider what you said in post #2?

Rylynn

Looksguywalker wrote: »

Maybe reconsider what you said in post #2?

I thought I had just done that by thanking the person for the information they had given, my goodness this forum has become slightly pedantic to what I remember in 2008 when all I got was the utmost help and respect. I have already said thankyou for explaining where I was wrong.

I always give credit where it it due and to my mind Lyle and Scott gave me a great service in the end today, which means I will carry on buying from them, and also saying they are a good company to deal with. Same goes for Office shoes who I had an issue with over a pair of trainers costing £110 and falling apart, LITERALLY, within 10 days, never even saw any rain, I did they did not, immediate refund, oh and they were Ralph Lauren Polo, I treat all shops the same be it Tesco, Gucci, or Asda, and today Lyle and Scott lived up to the reputation they have built up since 1871 and gave me the service I think I deserved, be it in my favour or not, I expect a REPLY, which so many just do not give, you are ignored, PayPal is a prime example I am told.

You highlighted orders placed I never said they had not honoured those, not anywhere in my 2nd post or otherwise for that matter.