John Lewis misleading advertising

LilElvis

Bellabella wrote: »

It seems it was. My point is the promotion on the website should have made that clear. It should have said 'Offer available until the 22nd (while stocks last)" Otherwise, common sense tells you that the offer is not limited other than by the date.

10 random strangers (and John Lewis) believe that "common sense" tells you that the offer would be limited by both date and availability.

And for the record I'm currently a SAHM who has never been an employee of the John Lewis Partnership.

AmoUK

It seems to be a trait on this site for the regular posters to try to abuse or belittle OP's, no wonder they are assumed to be shills.

The OP asked a legitimate question: if a retailer advertises a Promotion until a certain date, are they obliged to honour that until that date?

If it was a free haircut, for example, and the hairdresser was literally already booked up every minute until the promotion end date, would they be obliged to honour their offer or could they turn around and say "sorry, there are no bookings left, all our hairdressers are booked up" OR should they be obliged to go and find more hairdressers and position more chairs to increase capacity to be able to fulfil the needs of those taking up the offer within the timescale?

It would seem prudent for the hairdresser to say "...while booking slots available", or "only for the first 50 people", or "please call to check availability".

In the same way, should John Lewis go and buy more dishwashers, or should the onus be on them to state "while stocks last" or "only 223 machines left"?

Its not a simple "common sense" issue in my view and the OP has a legitimate question, that can be argued in both ways.

At the least, it would have been appropriate for JL to reply to her point and perhaps apologise to OP for not being clear and promise to do so in future as a simple pr / customer service exercise.

I agree that OP didnt suffer financial loss, only disappointment, so little or no chance of legal redress, but lets say she was enticed by the Advertisement to incur cost (eg. travelling long distance to a store or paying a builder/plumber to prepare the framework/fitting and plumbing for the dishwasher) in which case I wouldnt rule it out, or try to belittle the OP.

Finally, a word to the regular posters: if you're not a shill and are participating in an advice forum, try to look at the issue from the OP's perspective and explore all possible solutions, not resort to ridicule. You wouldnt expect a Doctor to tell a patient with unwanted pregnancy "should have kept your legs closed", that would be insensitive and unhelpful and ignorant of the wider context and considerations. Some of the responses I've seen here today are in that category, and 1 or 2 people would do well to get off their high horses and engage more positively.

powerful_Rogue

AmoUK wrote: »

I agree that OP didnt suffer financial loss, only disappointment, so little or no chance of legal redress, but lets say she was enticed by the Advertisement to incur cost (eg. travelling long distance to a store or paying a builder/plumber to prepare the framework/fitting and plumbing for the dishwasher) in which case I wouldnt rule it out, or try to belittle the OP.

Its called mitigating your losses. In you scenario, did the OP call John Lewis to confirm they had stock prior to their long journey?

As for the builder/plumber scenario - No contract had been formed so not the responsibility of John Lewis. Also wouldn't you need this regardless if you purchased another dishwasher?

Hintza

AmoUK wrote: »

You wouldn't expect a Doctor to tell a patient with unwanted pregnancy "should have kept your legs closed", that would be insensitive and unhelpful and ignorant of the wider context and considerations.

Would sound like the most sensible course of action.

The truth hurts!

George_Michael

AmoUK wrote: »

It seems to be a trait on this site for the regular posters to try to abuse or belittle OP's, no wonder they are assumed to be shills.

The OP asked a legitimate question: if a retailer advertises a Promotion until a certain date, are they obliged to honour that until that date?

The first two replies explained the situation to the OP perfectly and there was no abuse or belittling in them.
However, the OP appeared not to like the facts presented to them and the next post they stated "Looks like JL have a few staff on this site!"
IMO, this is no different to other posters stating that as you are backing up the OP then you must know them or be a member of their family.

If the OP only wanted replies that backed them up and didn't want other opinions, why bother posting a question in the first place?

MCGONIS

Hi. When you contact John L now, the staff are employed by Capita PLC in Glasgow. Previously they were employed by Teleperformance. Before that, they were employed directly by the partnership. I really do feel the service provided by John Lewis has dropped since they outsourced their customer service to a 3rd party.

Gers

Bellabella wrote: »

I am suggesting that they should make it clear that they only have a limited number at that price and that the offer ends when they run out and not at the specified date as they clearly indicated on the promotion for the dishwasher.

There aren't any JL staff on this site then????

From JL site;

Special buy

We negotiate exclusive discounts with our suppliers and pass the savings on to you.

These products are limited, either in quantity or for a period of time, but theyll always give you excellent quality at an exceptional price.



Reduced to clear

These products are being discontinued so weve reduced our prices while stocks last.

All our usual services apply during Clearance,including free delivery on orders over £50.

And when viewing anything on the site there is information about stock levels, sometimes 'more than 10 available' and sometimes 'out of stock'. I'm not sure how much clearer it could be.

neilmcl

MCGONIS wrote: »

Hi. When you contact John L now, the staff are employed by Capita PLC in Glasgow. Previously they were employed by Teleperformance. Before that, they were employed directly by the partnership. I really do feel the service provided by John Lewis has dropped since they outsourced their customer service to a 3rd party.

Also when you order larger, particularly electrical goods online the orders now go directly to the manufacturer to fulfill rather than JL themselves. Unfortunately this is the cost of having to compete with the likes of Amazon whilst maintaining their "never Knowingly Undersold" pledge. They have to reduce their operating costs somehow and usually customer services outsourcing is the first thing to happen. Hard to blame them really.

AmoUK

Gers wrote: »

These products are limited, either in quantity or for a period of time

Note that it says "OR", it doesnt say "AND". Implying the limit applies either to the period OR the quantity, not both. Thats the point the OP is highlighting.

George_Michael

AmoUK wrote: »

Note that it says "OR", it doesnt say "AND". Implying the limit applies either to the period OR the quantity, not both. Thats the point the OP is highlighting.

The item in question was limited by the quantity available and the OP tried to purchase after this limit had been reached.