Wrong price label on item

pendragon_arther

arcon5 wrote: »

I bet it wouldn't be so silly if you was the poor shop keeper struggling to make a living working 80 hrs per week and priced a tv up at 3.99 instead of 399.

and it has never been law

If the shop keeper was so negligent as to miss-price something as glaringly obvious as that then I would have no sympathy for them.

Explain to me this then. When I worked on MFI advertisements in the 70s/80s and the adverts were laden with prices which were constantly changing due to their competitors pricing alterations if a price was wrong by being underpriced and appeared in the press MFI were obliged to sell the products at that price which is why when we checked the prices we had to be so very careful otherwise the company could lose a lot of money.

marliepanda

pendragon_arther wrote: »

If the shop keeper was so negligent as to miss-price something as glaringly obvious as that then I would have no sympathy for them.

Explain to me this then. When I worked on MFI advertisements in the 70s/80s and the adverts were laden with prices which were constantly changing due to their competitors pricing alterations if a price was wrong by being underpriced and appeared in the press MFI were obliged to sell the products at that price which is why when we checked the prices we had to be so very careful otherwise the company could lose a lot of money.

Trading standards issues and/or company policy. Still never legally required. The only times it's illegal and a trading standards issue is when it is being done deliberately to trick or mislead a customer, which may be the case with the advertising you describe.

hollydays

"MFI Retail had been criticised, for the excessive frequency and length of its sales. In a six month survey by consumer magazine Which? it emerged that 4 out of 5 kitchens in the "sale" had never actually been sold at the higher price against which the discount claims were being made. Which? stated that "MFI's pricing policy deceived its customers into thinking they are getting a better deal than they are. In some cases, its pricing is downright misleading". MFI's advertising of such sales also came in for criticism for using phrases such as "Hurry! Only four days left" or "Prices too good to last" even though a new sale would almost always be launched "

pendragon_arther

hollydays wrote: »

"MFI Retail had been criticised, for the excessive frequency and length of its sales. In a six month survey by consumer magazine Which? it emerged that 4 out of 5 kitchens in the "sale" had never actually been sold at the higher price against which the discount claims were being made. Which? stated that "MFI's pricing policy deceived its customers into thinking they are getting a better deal than they are. In some cases, its pricing is downright misleading". MFI's advertising of such sales also came in for criticism for using phrases such as "Hurry! Only four days left" or "Prices too good to last" even though a new sale would almost always be launched "

But this wasn't illegal. Had it been so trading standards would have been involved. What they used to do was price up high an item destined for their never-ending sale in a small store in the 'sticks' for 28 days to comply with the law. Then it would go on general sale in all stores at the reduced price making it look like a massive saving. This was normal practice for most large furniture stores. I don't know if they do this nowadays.

The cheaper prices which had gone to press were not deliberately miss-priced because the checking process both with MFI head office and the studios producing the work had failed to pick up the mistakes. Don't forget the prices could change eight times in a day and there could be dozens of prices in a tabloid page advert. After each price change photostats would be sent to MFI for checking. You'd get loads of stats and if their staff weren't on the ball (which a lot of them weren't) mistakes could happen. But the point is MFI would have to sell their stuff at the miss-priced lower price. There was no invitation to treat.

marliepanda

Legally they did not have to. Do you have the law that said you did, or your managers word?

shaun_from_Africa

pendragon_arther wrote: »

But the point is MFI would have to sell their stuff at the miss-priced lower price. There was no invitation to treat.

The concept of "Invitation to treat" with relation to mispriced goods had been tested in court long before MFI had even been thought of.

Fisher v BellB]1961[/B 1 QB 394 is an English contract law case concerning the requirements of offer and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that, where goods are displayed in a shop together with a price label, such display is treated as an invitation to treat by the seller, and not an offer. The offer is instead made when the customer presents the item to the cashier together with payment. Acceptance occurs at the point the cashier takes payment.

pelirocco

pendragon_arther wrote: »

When I was younger shops had to honour the price but since EU things have changed to the silly invitation to treat.

1953 was the boots case which we were taught was the test case for invitation to treat

RichardD1970

pendragon_arther wrote: »

Then it would go on general sale in all stores at the reduced price making it look like a massive saving. This was normal practice for most large furniture stores. I don't know if they do this nowadays.

They still did a couple of years ago.

We were in a furniture shop, can't remember which one now, looking a sofas and were told quite specifically by the member of staff to ignore the price on a specific sofa as it was only priced that high to allow for a big "sale" reduction, and if we liked that one to wait a couple of weeks.

xxJudexx

I worked in TK Maxx for almost five years and ticket switching was a very real problem.
Each 'department' has a corresponding code, so ladies accessories would be 06, mens smart shoes 25 etc. This code is part of the barcode so when a price sticker has been switched it is sometimes very easy to tell. When scanning reduced items the cashiers have to double check the barcode with the original white one, if they don't match then they can't sell for the reduced price.
We had serial offenders in our store and were sometimes told by security to let the sale go through so they could build up their evidence to prosecute.
We also had people trying to return cheap items with expensive tickets on them, so had to be vigilent with returns too!

Bogof_Babe

xxJudexx wrote: »

I worked in TK Maxx for almost five years and ticket switching was a very real problem.
Each 'department' has a corresponding code, so ladies accessories would be 06, mens smart shoes 25 etc. This code is part of the barcode so when a price sticker has been switched it is sometimes very easy to tell. When scanning reduced items the cashiers have to double check the barcode with the original white one, if they don't match then they can't sell for the reduced price.
We had serial offenders in our store and were sometimes told by security to let the sale go through so they could build up their evidence to prosecute.
We also had people trying to return cheap items with expensive tickets on them, so had to be vigilent with returns too!

Thank you for that illuminating explanation! It explains the wallet situation I encountered, where I found it on the ladies accessories but the system had it as a man's.

Nowadays I don't think people bother so much with label switching - going by the numerous empty boxes on the shelves it's more likely that they just nick what they want :mad: .