Tesco Mis-Price

taxiphil

uktim29 wrote: »

Told you about Trading Standards Phil. They see these things as just being petty. Yet another example.

Lets be honest as posted above, people actually worry about their rights over a jar of coffee:rotfl:

I know you hate it when I go off on a psychological analysis but this is classic short man syndrome. Short man syndrome being a state of mind rather than making an assumption about ones height.

But in this case, surely you would agree Tim, that Trading Standards don't even appear to know the law if they have made a wholly incorrect statement like "Tesco's are perfectly within their rights" ???

Finding the law petty is one thing, but not even knowing the law is another thing altogether.

You can call it short man syndrome if you like, but I call it principles. I don't think it's a case of worrying about your rights over a jar of coffee, it's a case of finding it very disturbing and unacceptable that Tesco (and even Trading Standards) appear to think they're entitled to display incorrect pricing.

For the record I don't dislike Tesco because they are big and successful. I'm not the bitter and twisted anti-capitalist you may think I am! There are some big and successful companies who I applaud and admire, such as Ryanair, Waitrose, and (this one may surprise you) McDonalds.

It's Tesco's attitude and behaviour that makes me dislike them.

uktim29

I'm not sure it is against the law. We know it's not against the SOG act. Then we've got the vague consumer protection act where as you know I define the word miss-leading to include intent. But this ticket had an expiry date written on it.

taxiphil wrote: »

Their Double The Difference policy is legally binding under Section 14 of the Trade Descriptions Act, and there are no caveats attached to this policy which state that customers are supposed to check expiry dates on SELs.

Are you sure the default isn't they have to check unless there are caveats saying they don't have to check. Most laws require the consumer to understand everything they've read/and to read it, including expiry dates.

taxiphil

The answer is that I really don't know. There doesn't seem to be any case law on it.

But, at an educated guess, I think it would come down to the "test of reasonableness" if it ever went to a prosecution.

1. The expiry date on Tesco SELs is very small. (I think it's 8 point text, which is about two thirds the size of newspaper print). Is it reasonable to assume that all customers can easily read it? Personally, I don't think that expectation is a reasonable one. Remember, you have to consider the elderly here.

2. Is it reasonable that a busy mother filling a trolley to the brim whilst trying to cope with two screaming kids around her ankles is supposed to check the expiry date on the SEL for every single item she picks up? Again, I think not.

3. Is it reasonable that customers are not made aware by Tesco, by way of clear signage or whatever means, that offers/prices displayed are not necessarily correct, and that the onus falls on them to check every SEL? I think not. I think it is reasonable that all customers assume by default that all offers/prices on display are automatically correct by virtue of the fact they are on display.

These questions are all subjective, and I get the feeling you will disagree with all of my answers Tim!

But what really matters is what a court would think. And we'll probably have to agree to disagree on that one.

mum2one

It is actually the supermarkets fault if the item is mispriced, ie the shelf label offer has expired and not been moved then the store legaaly has to offer the item at the price.

Where it can get complicated is the actual sale, as supermarkets are inviting you into their premises and can say no we dont want your business.

I had this a couple of weeks ago on kids satamas, think they were £2.00 each, or 2 £2.50, it was only after we paid that we looked at the receipt, when the person off the service desk, got a member of grocery we wet to that point of sale with them, so they could not take the poster down and say it had gone.

we had a double refund on the difference. x

Brooker_Dave

mum2one wrote: »

It is actually the supermarkets fault if the item is mispriced, ie the shelf label offer has expired and not been moved then the store legaaly has to offer the item at the price.

Not so.

Fisher v Bell (1961) - Under contract law a display of goods is an 'invitation to treat' and not an 'offer for sale'

grayme-m

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 states that it is a criminal offence to make a misleading price indication.

Brooker_Dave

grayme-m wrote: »

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 states that it is a criminal offence to make a misleading price indication.

"Trading standards say Tesco's are perfectly within their rights"

hollydays

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Back in the day Tescos honoured any mistakes like this.

Then some freeloaders tried to milk it.

So,IF the OP is a muppet and a freeloader you would ignore what they say..? And that includes their "quotes"....?

mum2one

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Not so.

Fisher v Bell (1961) - Under contract law a display of goods is an 'invitation to treat' and not an 'offer for sale'

if you would of read the whole post - you will of noticed that was the point I was trying to get across in the 2nd paragraph.

grayme-m

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

"Trading standards say Tesco's are perfectly within their rights"

Consumer Protection Act 1987:

20.—( 1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part, a person shall
misleading be guilty of an offence if, in the course of any business of his, he gives (by
indication, any means whatever) to any consumers an indication which is misleading
as to the price at which any goods, services, accommodation or facilities
are available (whether generally or from particular persons).
(2) Subject as aforesaid, a person shall be guilty of an offence if—
(a) in the course of any business of his, he has given an indication
to any consumers which, after it was given, has become
misleading as mentioned in subsection (1) above; and
(b) some or all of those consumers might reasonably be expected to
rely on the indication at a time after it has become misleading;
and
(c) he fails to take all such steps as are reasonable to prevent those
consumers from relying on the indication.