Taken off the shelf for a price check

uktim29

It's down to the definition of misleading

"To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving."

That is not the definition of incorrect. This is where people make the mistake, there is no intent with the definition of incorrect. Thats why the law says misleading, thats why you won't find anywhere a law saying it is illegal for a price to be just incorrect which is where the SOGA "invitation to a treat" comes to play.

timnicebutdim_2

To be misleading though a price would need to be kept permanently on display.

Agree with you on the above. But....there is nothing in the statute that says anything about intent;

Meaning of “misleading”.
— (1) For the purposes of section 20 above an indication given to any consumers is misleading as to a price if what is conveyed by the indication, or what those consumers might reasonably be expected to infer from the indication or any omission from it, includes any of the following, that is to say—
(a)
that the price is less than in fact it is;

(b)
that the applicability of the price does not depend on facts or circumstances on which its applicability does in fact depend;

(c)
that the price covers matters in respect of which an additional charge is in fact made;

(d)
that a person who in fact has no such expectation—

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=39&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1541596&activetextdocid=1541620

Thats why the law says misleading, thats why you won't find anywhere a law saying it is illegal for a price to be just incorrect

Sorry but your wrong!

uktim29

timnicebutdim wrote: »

Agree with you on the above. But....there is nothing in the statute that says anything about intent;

Meaning of “misleading”.
— (1) For the purposes of section 20 above an indication given to any consumers is misleading as to a price if what is conveyed by the indication, or what those consumers might reasonably be expected to infer from the indication or any omission from it, includes any of the following, that is to say—
(a)
that the price is less than in fact it is;

(b)
that the applicability of the price does not depend on facts or circumstances on which its applicability does in fact depend;

(c)
that the price covers matters in respect of which an additional charge is in fact made;

(d)
that a person who in fact has no such expectation—

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=39&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1541596&activetextdocid=1541620



Sorry but your wrong!

No, that dosn't cover an incorrect price. That is assuming the displayed price is permanent.

Why are there not umpteen cases if it's against the law of retailers being prosecuted for incorrect prices then?

timnicebutdim_2

No, that dosn't cover an incorrect price.

I've given a definition above of what the Statute defines as a misleading price. An incorrect price if you like, is a misleading price, if (as according to the Act) it conveys "by indication"..."that the price is less than the fact it is". Your using a dictionary definition of 'incorrect' which is irrelevant to the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Have a read of the Act here:

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=39&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1541596&activetextdocid=1541620

That is assuming the displayed price is permanent.

Nowhere does the Act say anything about timescales. The term 'permanent' would be too ambiguous (a week, a month, a year??). But however if you look at Part 20 (c) it says the trader will be guilty of an offence if he doesn't prevent consumers relying upon the indication. Which brings me to my final point...

Why are there not umpteen cases if it's against the law of retailers being prosecuted for incorrect prices then?

The whole point is, prosecution is a sanction that is used as a last resort. There have been high profile cases. But usually prosecutions occur for the most persistent offenders or due to non-compliance or if the offence is considered serious enough. Remember it also costs a lot of (taxpayers) money to go to court. This is why Trading standards and the Advertising Standards Authority have a range of powers to enforce the law. E.g. most of the time they will just speak to the retailer on the phone.

timnicebutdim_2

Also see this FAQ from here:

http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/fact-sheets/page38133.html

Q1. I was charged a different price for an item at the till to the one that was shown on the shelf, what are my rights?
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 makes it an offence for a trader to give a consumer misleading price indications. In the first instance speak to the trader about the differing prices, if you are not satisfied with the response, contact your local authority trading standards department who enforce the Act and who could bring a prosecution against the trader.

cam101

Has anybody considered that they may have been correctly priced (very possible, considering they were Christmas stock), and that the sales assistant wanted them?

I'm not saying all sales staff would do this, but in this case it sounds like a possibility.

I once bought a lovely top, and when I got to the till it flashed up as being really reduced (something like £15 down to £3). As I was leaving the shop, I saw the sales assistants taking them off the shelf and holding them up against themselves! Nothing wrong with this of course, but we mustn't foget that staff are also consumers, and may feel that as an employee they deserve first look at bargains.

superscaper

cam101 wrote: »

Has anybody considered that they may have been correctly priced (very possible, considering they were Christmas stock), and that the sales assistant wanted them?

I'm not saying all sales staff would do this, but in this case it sounds like a possibility.

I once bought a lovely top, and when I got to the till it flashed up as being really reduced (something like £15 down to £3). As I was leaving the shop, I saw the sales assistants taking them off the shelf and holding them up against themselves! Nothing wrong with this of course, but we mustn't foget that staff are also consumers, and may feel that as an employee they deserve first look at bargains.

I guess staff taking it for themselves from the shelves is sort of a first come first serve basis but there are times when it can seem unfair, I remember a few months ago when a limited edition signed book came out exclusively to Waterstones. Because it was so limited only one or two were sent to each branch. But the staff were buying them for themselves before they were made available to the public and therefore bypassing the chance for a non-employee to buy them. And the employees buying them tended to be for either their family members or they put them up on ebay for extortionate amounts. So I think there's got to be some kind of limit or you're not really serving the consumer and helping with customer relations at all. I can see how employees can have perks of the job but that shouldn't really be taken to extremes.

kuohu

Nevermind all that, I want to know what the OP is doing with all these teddies! Does he/she run a coconut shy?

Fleago

kuohu wrote: »

Nevermind all that, I want to know what the OP is doing with all these teddies! Does he/she run a coconut shy?

You took the words right out of my mouth, Kuohu!

What are you doing with all those Teddies, OP? Enquiring minds demand to know! :rotfl:

isayoldchap

These were originally priced at £6 each and were on offer at 50p each.
With three children of different ages they make a perfect addittion to a gift for Christmas,Birthdays or special occassions.
They even would have looked good towards the kids room collection.

At the start of the year I make notes in the diaries for upcoming events and keep special carrier bags of gifts for certain parties etc.Christmas seems to be a bit more of a giveaway in certain stores.There will of course be further invites from school friends which also will require gifts.
This makes it a whole lot easier to budget instead of rushing out at the last minute trying to find that gift which may not have been reduced in the sale.
Would you be tempted to buy now at say £2.50 instead of £10+ for an upcoming event?

Call it compulsive buying but over the whole year I save bundles.
Better still people think you paid alot so may buy you a better present.
Or are they playing the same game as you?:money: