Consumer law allows the less well informed to be ripped off!

cepheus

Neither do I think I'm smart enough to get around all these tricks.

How You’re Manipulated into Buying Stuff You Don’t Want and Paying More Than You Should

Read more: http://business.time.com/2010/09/16/how-youre-manipulated-into-buying-stuff-you-dont-want-and-paying-more-than-you-should/#ixzz2iFxv6AEQ

jacques_chirac

cepheus wrote: »

You have made the fundamental error.

Even if those below the 50 percentile now, increase their consumer knowledge, there would remain 50 percent below average. This would allow businesses to legally increase the level of deception to target this 50% because of the way the law is written.

Stop blaming the consumers, it's the greedy businesses and the economic system which focuses on profits and shareholder value, which is the fundamental problem.

Wrong again. The test is one of reasonableness, which stays the same irrespective of how intelligent people are on average.

It does come across that you don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

jacques_chirac

cepheus wrote: »

Neither do I think I'm smart enough to get around all these tricks.

At least you are not under any false illusions!

cepheus

I suggest if you wish to argue your case instead of insulting people you argue a rational logical case and quote the regulation which supports it.

What evidence do you suggest that reasonableness is not relative? Surely what is a reasonable way to act towards a child or mentally impaired person, is totally different to that of an savvy adult (that's why tobacco advertising is banned near schools). So similarly reasonableness must be also variable across mature adults of different ability.

It clearly implies here that it is fine to materially distort the economic behaviour of a less than average consumer. Not that I believe they are even conforming to this rule as indicated earlier.

“materially distort the economic behaviour” means in relation to an average consumer, appreciably to impair the average consumer’s ability to make an informed decision thereby causing him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/made

It may also be useful when defending the industry to declare any conflicts of interest. Do you run a business or support the commercial side of one? I have no conflicts of interest. I just oppose opportunists taking advantage of consumers.

Money-Saving-King

cepheus wrote: »

You have made the fundamental error.

cepheus wrote: »

I suggest if you wish to argue your case instead of insulting people you argue a rational logical case

Here's rational & logical for you. What about your fundamental error?

There are umpteen con artist consumer who try to con business's out of money every day. Your amazing theory seems to have missed this very real point.

No I do not have a conflict of interest with this before you start!!

Esqui

The law is full of words like "average" and "reasonable", which don't really have a firm legal basis, and are more to do with "would a court consider this to be correct/incorrect/misleading?". When the law says the "average consumer", it doesn't literally mean the 50th percentile of intelligence. They don't do IQ tests in court to check.

vuvuzela

Esqui wrote: »

The law is full of words like "average" and "reasonable", which don't really have a firm legal basis, and are more to do with "would a court consider this to be correct/incorrect/misleading?". When the law says the "average consumer", it doesn't literally mean the 50th percentile of intelligence. They don't do IQ tests in court to check.

...and there is pointed out the fundamental error that the OP made in his first post in this thread and pretty much every subsequent one.

arcon5

I find it highly hypocritical many consumers around here are happy to manipulate the system (or seek to) to try and obtain a discount (such as abusing the 'max 2 per customer' terms; taking advantage of pricing errors; trying to force a partial refund when a price changes; amongst many more tactics), yet when a business uses an underhand tactic to maximise their profits the consumer wants laws and regulations to be put in place!

Andy_L

Does this piece of legislation not refer to "Advertising puff" ie subjective claims that the reasonable/average person wouldn't take literally eg

"crumbliest flakiest milk chocolate in the world"

"probably the best larger in the world"

ThumbRemote

arcon5 wrote: »

I find it highly hypocritical many consumers around here are happy to manipulate the system (or seek to) to try and obtain a discount (such as abusing the 'max 2 per customer' terms; taking advantage of pricing errors; trying to force a partial refund when a price changes; amongst many more tactics), yet when a business uses an underhand tactic to maximise their profits the consumer wants laws and regulations to be put in place!

The law already protects businesses in all the three cases you gave. 'Invitation to treat' means stores can impose terms and refuse to sell to customers. Contract not being formed until despatch means online retailers can avoid pricing errors, even after taking money. Forcing a partial refund - well, there's nothing that says the retailer has to give a refund, except in certain cases of the DSRs.

You're also not comparing like for like. Those actions on the consumer part are hardly comparable to a business outright lying to a customer to sell a product, which is what the CPfUTR covers. A more valid comparison is a customer paying on a known stolen debit card, so the retailer doesn't get the money they expected (which I hope and assume is illegal!)