Someone can't do their maths

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

superscaper, you are more of a pedant than I am sometimes (and that's saying something ) Don't get so hung up on the words of the bits of laws you remember, which means you miss the thrust of law that you don't ... just use your common! It's illegal as hell, period

I agree that it isn't right or moral. But there's nothing illegal about it. A shop can put whatever price they want on goods and charge something completely different at the till. You can then accept and refuse that. There's nothing illegal there at all. The shop would lose all its' customers but poor customer relations and poor business practice is not the same as the law. I was only disagreeing with your claim that it was illegal which is a very specific statement to make.

If they overcharged in terms of taking more money than you'd agreed to then that would be illegal yes.

peterbaker

Take a look at laws relating to misleading the customer. That is what is as illegal as hell. Just because a customer passes through some kind of till and pays a total as asked, doesn't mean they have been through any suitable acceptance and offer scenario.

Also bear in mind that English common law relating to these modern day scenarios / wheezes / inconsistencies is not written down anywhere for you to Google it easily, but it is still the law.

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

Take a look at laws relating to misleading the customer. That is what is as illegal as hell. Just because a customer passes through some kind of till and pays a total as asked, doesn't mean they have been through any suitable acceptance and offer scenario.

Also bear in mind that English common law relating to these modern day scenarios / wheezes / inconsistencies is not written down anywhere for you to Google it easily, but it is still the law.

Common law is still written down surely. Otherwise how is it recorded since it's established by precedent cases.

Edit: well I'm not 100% if I'm wrong or not (if I am I concede the point and it doesn't work the same way as pricing mistakes) in this specific scenario but it's definitely not common law as it's covered by the Consumer Protection Act 1987. (I presume the source is reliable, being from MSE.com :rolleyes:).

peterbaker

superscaper wrote: »

... it's definitely not common law as it's covered by the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Isn't that a bit like saying that finding new ways to continue to beat your wife with debateable visible evidence of any violence is definitely not the province of common law as it's covered by the Marriage Act 1949 ? ...

BTW, I like the hat, supers :xmassmile