Everyone Lost In The Ether

Cashlesslassie

What do you think the chances are of the pot noddles still glitching if I go now? Hmmmmmm

Savvybuyer

Cashlesslassie wrote: »

What do you think the chances are of the pot noddles still glitching if I go now? Hmmmmmm

Probably pretty good if you check the receipt before 6am (which implies completing your shop before 3am), although under the "new" APG system I have no idea. Sorry not the expert on this one:o:o:(.:) NB: I would not wait until 3am to shop - I would go right now. Can't guarantee particularly as hotdeals link says don't go after midnight?

Savvybuyer

How could I be incomplete?:eek::eek:

But - did no-one tell me I had missed Original Curry there? Come on, you're all slacking on this thread - should be telling Savvy he's wrong:rotfl::rotfl::D:T:T.:o:o:o:rotfl:

[EDIT: So, another one point to Savvy for picking up his own error again:D:j:p:p:p:rotfl::rotfl: (Come on, Savvy, it's not a point-scoring exercise!:eek::p:naughty:)]

Actually, not an error. An omission. So I got that wrong too:rotfl:. But, I was avoiding being pedantic:T:T:).

Savvybuyer

TrulyMadly wrote: »

Sains BM excludes wines and spirits I think

So anything any good like this (which may potentially come about) and they've chosen not to match it:(.

In which case someone ought to complain about this (to the Advertising Standards):
https://www.sainsburys-live-well-for-less.co.uk/brand-match/

"We match Asda’s deals and prices on brands
[...] If you could have paid less at Asda – even because of the deal – we’ll give you a coupon for the difference off your next shop."


Nowhere on that page does it mention anything about the exclusion related to wine/spirits. I would have thought that was pretty significant to someone expecting a price on Bailey's to be matched (via coupon for the difference back). It is not obvious to the average person, in my view, that wines and spirits would be excluded from a grocery price match scheme. The 'small(er) print' on that page mentions "Multibuys on alcohol are not available in Scotland." but does not mention anything else related.

Perhaps it is also, potentially, an issue under Unfair Terms in Contracts regulations? As regards terms not drawn to attention or not as prominent and hence issues of whether "good faith"? That might include that prominent promotion on that specific URL page, where people generally do not click to read all the terms and conditions. Therefore, in the formation of that contract, it could be argued, where the person then went in reliance on that and purchased Bailey's (knowingly or unknowingly) as long as in a 10+ item shop (that condition is clearly stated on that page), the information they had been given would be the pre-contractual information on that page, which had become incorporated into the contract formed on the purchase of the shopping, it could be argued, and if something different and more restrictive applied, such as the 'small print' T&Cs and exclusions, then it could be argued to be unfair (and contrary to good faith given that not disclosed (i.e. not prominently enough) by the supplier - we all click on agreements without reading full terms). However, what do I know? [NB: If someone does complain to the ASA, do not mention anything about Unfair Terms regulations as the ASA will not get involved on anything in non-broadcast advertising that relates to issues of the law. The complaint would be that a significant condition or restriction was not made clear on that initial URL page, alongside the bold (and maybe even bald) claim "We match Asda's prices and deals on brands" and consumers generally are likely not to read the full T&Cs and therefore such a condition, which is significant and likely to affect their decision to purchase or otherwise, should be made more explicitly clear at the outset (i.e. on that URL page somewhere) and therefore it would be claimed that failure to do this (failure to state a significant limitation or condition) was contrary to the advertising codes. Of course they do state it, in the actual T&Cs, but the point is people generally may not see them and it should be nearer to the claim.]

However, you would get no money or compensation in any way from an ASA complaint, so I think it's not :money:. Any member of the public that reads this however could complain to the ASA if they wished to test the matter and, if they were to do so, it's possible that an investigation might be launched. Or maybe the ASA would disagree and throw it out without one:rotfl:. No harm in that though. I reckon possible prima facie and therefore case to investigate - but I know nothing.

[Although, it's possible that, if someone had bought Bailey's, once on offer in A and on a.com etc., at Sains. and then complained to the ASA and, if it did launch an investigation, that Sains, as a reputable company, might decide to want to contact the complainant and, as a matter of their own goodwill, compensate them for the difference. There is of course no guarantee of that happening, but it's maybe a possibility. And if (important if) it happened, then the ASA would contact the complainant first to ask whether they were happy for their details to be given to Sains. so that Sains could contact them. In that limited sense, perhaps there is scope for compensation - and maybe it would go beyond merely a refund of the difference - although this is certainly not what usually happens under the advertising complaints scheme. The ASA does not and cannot award any compensation - and, indeed, under the T&Cs Sains. has specifically excluded wines and spirits so owes no compensation to anyone who purchases any such products from Sains.] Nothing in this post of mine constitutes legal advice etc.

I think moral is: If this offer comes about in A, do not buy in Sains!! As we know it is excluded and therefore pointless trying to seek a price refund voucher in respect of from Sains. on something that, under the T&Cs, clearly is not going to be given. I assume that Bailey's qualifies as "spirits"?






https://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-Broadcast/CodeItem.aspx?cscid={61a03caa-6750-498d-8732-68d55c0752fd}#.VjF7ritz_IW
"3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner."

It would (or perhaps could) be argued that the material information (the exclusion of wines and spirits from the scheme) was hidden, in the T&Cs on another page which required to be clicked through to and consumers who did not suspect such an exclusion would not click through to the T&Cs to become aware of it and would be unlikely to read the full detail of them in any event. Hence argued also to be "unclear" as well as, possibly, "untimely". And maybe even "unintelligible" to our muggles:rotfl::rotfl:.

"3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
3.10 Qualifications must be presented clearly.

CAP [Committee of Advertising Practice, that writes the Codes that are enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority] has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification."

https://www.cap.org.uk/~/media/Files/Copy%20Advice/Help%20Notes%20new/qualification_claims.ashx

Cashlesslassie

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Probably pretty good if you check the receipt before 6am (which implies completing your shop before 3am), although under the "new" APG system I have no idea. Sorry not the expert on this one:o:o:(.:) NB: I would not wait until 3am to shop - I would go right now. Can't guarantee particularly as hotdeals link says don't go after midnight?

Oh I did it! lol nothing ventured nothing gained! paid with apg so not too much of a hit if there is one! Teenagers in the house seem to love these honky things, I would rather have a slice of toast!

Now to stay awake till 3... you tube will be my friend

scamps1966

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Er... good morning!:D:j

:rotfl::wave::wave:

Morning.

Savvybuyer

Except that I'm now reposting as I'm just reordering my posts:rotfl::rotfl:. To 'pretend' that this was my last one. So - mine now appears to come after yours!:D:rotfl:

Er... good morning!:D:j

:rotfl::wave::wave:

Savvybuyer

Cashlesslassie wrote: »

Oh I did it! lol nothing ventured nothing gained! paid with apg so not too much of a hit if there is one! Teenagers in the house seem to love these honky things, I would rather have a slice of toast!

Now to stay awake till 3... you tube will be my friend

Best of luck...

Oh well, I tried to end on a post that said 'good morning'!:D:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I won't be here at 3. I'm off to bed, at last:D:D. Yes, I am!:cool:

Bye:rotfl::wave:.

Munqui

Why £14.85?

27 items (9 different) on your receipt qualify for comparison Asda Morrisons
1x Pot Noodle Sweet & Sour (90G) £1.00 £0.50
1x Pot Noodle Chinese Chow Mein (90G) £1.00 £0.50
1x Pot Noodle Bombay Bad Boy (90G) £1.00 £0.50
10x Pot Noodle Chicken & Mushroom (90G) £10.00 £5.00
4x Pot Noodle Original Curry (90G) £4.00 £2.00
7x Pot Noodle Beef & Tomato (90G) £7.00 £3.50
1x Pot Noodle Sticky Rib (90G) £1.00 £0.50
1x Pot Noodle Brazilian BBQ Steak (90G) £1.00 £0.50
1x Pot Noodle Sausage Casserole Flavour (90G) £1.00 £0.50
Comparison total (compared products only) £27.00 £13.50

[STRIKE]Night[/STRIKE] morning all!

3Dogs

Munqui wrote: »

Why £14.85?

27 items (9 different) on your receipt qualify for comparison Asda Morrisons
1x Pot Noodle Sweet & Sour (90G) £1.00 £0.50
1x Pot Noodle Chinese Chow Mein (90G) £1.00 £0.50
1x Pot Noodle Bombay Bad Boy (90G) £1.00 £0.50
10x Pot Noodle Chicken & Mushroom (90G) £10.00 £5.00
4x Pot Noodle Original Curry (90G) £4.00 £2.00
7x Pot Noodle Beef & Tomato (90G) £7.00 £3.50
1x Pot Noodle Sticky Rib (90G) £1.00 £0.50
1x Pot Noodle Brazilian BBQ Steak (90G) £1.00 £0.50
1x Pot Noodle Sausage Casserole Flavour (90G) £1.00 £0.50
Comparison total (compared products only) £27.00 £13.50

[STRIKE]Night[/STRIKE] morning all!

Well done Munqui :T