Wrong price label on item

Mr_Norrell

pelirocco wrote: »

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

PSGB v Boots, Carlil v Carbolic and Fisher v Bell all involved invitation to treat.

The first, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball co [1893] 1 QB 256 held that in certain cases, an advertisement could amount to an offer rather than invitation to treat. Advertisement's are usually invitation to treat (see Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204).

Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 held that the general rule (see Carlill) is that the display of goods in a shop is an invitation to treat.

The application of Fisher can be seen in PSGB v Boots [1953] 1 QB 401. It was held that the contract was formed at the cash desk, not when the customer took the items off the shelves; the display of goods were simply invitation to treat so Boots were not guilty of an offence.

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

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: .

Ticket switchers were always easy to spot. I once had a guy try to convince me that his tea set were all men's slippers, which if he had gotten away with it, would have saved him £3. :rotfl:

prowla

Surely you just need an effective system to stop ticket switching.

hollydays

prowla wrote: »

Surely you just need an effective system to stop ticket switching.

There are anti peel tickets available.the op does say that the tickets on her item were extremely well fixed hence she thought this was the true price.

prowla

hollydays wrote: »

There are anti peel tickets available.the op does say that the tickets on her item were extremely well fixed hence she thought this was the true price.

Yes; I don't fully trust the shop in question...