Lyle and Scott

Looksguywalker

Rylynn wrote: »

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.

I said post #2, the one where you used the words dimwit, stupid and GREED, I did not mention your second post. But hey ho it was only a suggestion.

antrobus

Rylynn wrote: »

.... Below is from the Trade Description act site.. which is what I thought covered this type of thing....

It's not from the Trade Description act site, it's just some guy running the domain 'tradedescriptionsact.co.uk'

Rylynn wrote: »

.
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.

That would be Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass (1971)

Rylynn wrote: »

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

No idea. But the plonker behind tradedescriptionsact.co.uk certainly got it wrong. Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass (1971) is a 'landmark case', but that's because Tesco got the conviction overturned by the House of Lords, because they had exercised 'due diligence'. It's a leading case because Tesco were acquitted of the charge.

vuvuzela

antrobus wrote: »

It's not from the Trade Description act site, it's just some guy running the domain 'tradedescriptionsact.co.uk'




That would be Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass (1971)



No idea. But the plonker behind tradedescriptionsact.co.uk certainly got it wrong. Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass (1971) is a 'landmark case', but that's because Tesco got the conviction overturned by the House of Lords, because they had exercised 'due diligence'. It's a leading case because Tesco were acquitted of the charge.

How dare you come on here and use facts. You should be ashamed

harty999

What about post 1. They never rang me back or replied to my email.:(:(
I still went ahead and placed the order losing out on £45!

geordieracer

Oh woe is me I wanted to buy some nice clothes for once rather then the tat I buy from Primark but the website made a mistake and they should now pay for this mistake or Im never going to buy from them again... Not that I ever would cos I cant afford it but I want my bloody compo compo COMPO

ChabbyAlonso

Does anyone know if Lyle & Scott honoured orders on full priced polos when using the '50POLO2012' code during the first week of additional discounts? I hesitated checking out with the items because I wanted to find out what size would be suitable if I tried one on in town, but noticed it wouldn't accept it on polos that weren't already on sale soon after.

thatlemming

ChabbyAlonso wrote: »

Does anyone know if Lyle & Scott honoured orders on full priced polos when using the '50POLO2012' code during the first week of additional discounts? I hesitated checking out with the items because I wanted to find out what size would be suitable if I tried one on in town, but noticed it wouldn't accept it on polos that weren't already on sale soon after.

Yeah they did, my bf got his.

harty999

Got this reply yesterday

Hi,



Yesterday morning we realised that we had got a little carried away with our discounts, when we put through the 50% reduction we didn’t take it into account the additional 50% off offer; this resulted in us selling some lines for less than we paid for them.



When we spotted this we put the prices back up, but for a while there was a period where the price on the category page was lower that the product page which has caused some confusion.



As a gesture of good will we will arrange a refund for the difference in price.



Please accept my apologies for the confusion caused



Kind regards

Lyle & Scott

Result I am happy enough now

harty999

Has anyone received their orders yet?