Rip Off Britain?

Money-Saving-King

jack_pott wrote: »

but I would have thought that the law might have had something to say if the customer is not told that he is being charged more at the time he hands the money over

But only they would know. The till price would also be the assumed shelf edge label price. I'm not sure what you mean, are you saying the cashier should say "the till say x but the label says y". As I said it doesn't work like that, an error won't be known until someone actually notices.

Money-Saving-King

Laz123 wrote: »

But from a consumer's point of view this has to be a stupid law.

Only to unreasonable consumers. As has been said above it's not law as the law recognises that humans can make mistakes and the law takes account of what reasonable people think (reasonable often being a term used in retail law).

Laz123

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

Only to unreasonable consumers. As has been said above it's not law as the law recognises that humans can make mistakes and the law takes account of what reasonable people think (reasonable often being a term used in retail law).

Spoken like a true retailer, but not as a consumer.

Let me put it this way then. Our society does recognise to err is human, it's part of our make up. But mistakes come at a price. Always. If they didn't the mistakes could continue ad infinitum. So in the case of this invitation to treat 'law' (which I think is silly) which protects the retailer more than the consumer, if the mistakes weren't recognised and corrected who is to know this bad practise wouldn't continue. No, I can't accept your argument.

mije1983

Laz123 wrote: »

Spoken like a true retailer, but not as a consumer.

Let me put it this way then. Our society does recognise to err is human, it's part of our make up. But mistakes come at a price. Always. If they didn't the mistakes could continue ad infinitum. So in the case of this invitation to treat 'law' (which I think is silly) which protects the retailer more than the consumer, if the mistakes weren't recognised and corrected who is to know this bad practise wouldn't continue. No, I can't accept your argument.

The law doesn't allow for consistent mistakes, which is what you seem to be saying it does. If this is happening often then it is misleading and the retailer can be prosecuted.

Lobby your MP for a change in the law if you think it's 'silly'! But first, how would you replace the invitation to treat then? Bear in mind it would have to be balanced, so no 'the price on the ticket is the price you pay' as that would be very detrimental to retailers if people decided to go into a shop and change a price ticket for a PS4 with one for a bag of sugar for example.....

DaveTheMus

This actually happened to me a few days ago in Lidl...

They had some biscuits advertised for 39p in the little booklet of offers they release weekly.

I bought 3 packets of these biscuits and they were 81p each, I queried it with the till-girl and she said 'the offer is only valid on the weekend'.

I said 'fair enough' paid for the biscuits and left.

I guarantee that this is what's happened here. The only way the OP could compare the price on the receipt is if he was checking it against the same little magazine they publish.

yangptangkipperbang

mije1983 wrote: »

I was expecting so much more from this thread when I read the title. And all it turns out to be is one Lidl error

.........................and, of course, Lidl shops in Germany do not make errors............do zey ?

Money-Saving-King

Laz123 wrote: »

Spoken like a true retailer, but not as a consumer.

So I'm not a consumer then? I've never bought anything?

Laz123

mije1983 wrote: »

The law doesn't allow for consistent mistakes, which is what you seem to be saying it does. If this is happening often then it is misleading and the retailer can be prosecuted.

Lobby your MP for a change in the law if you think it's 'silly'! But first, how would you replace the invitation to treat then? Bear in mind it would have to be balanced, so no 'the price on the ticket is the price you pay' as that would be very detrimental to retailers if people decided to go into a shop and change a price ticket for a PS4 with one for a bag of sugar for example.....

Somewhere along the line the premise of the invitation to treat has changed. Perhaps the EU quietly altered the law to more protect the retailer (the French maybe) than the consumer.

I worked on MFI (now Wren) for many years in the 80s and 90s. All their bedrooms and kitchens had prices. The retail world was and is very competitive. We worked to deadlines to catch the presses for next day's newspapers. If we got one prices wrong (they constantly changed up to the last minute) they would have to sell those units for those prices even if it could be proved it was a genuine mistake. Sometimes it happened and they lost money because that was the price advertised. There was no silly invitation to treat. That was the price and that was the price they had to sell at. That protected the public.

Laz123

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

So I'm not a consumer then? I've never bought anything?

I said spoken as in attitude.

Money-Saving-King

Laz123 wrote: »

I said spoken as in attitude.

As I said there's reasonable & unreasonable, what you want certainly falls into being the latter.