MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Alan give the laptop back?

robpw2 · 3 July 2008 at 3:55PM

It is not theft if the till scans it at that price and the store agree to sell it at that price then that is the price you pay . You are entering into a contract at the till. If it was reduced at the till to 349.00 then not one person would suggest its theft you just happened to get a bargain . its only beacue the suggestion that it was 3.99 that people are bringing in theft and fraud.
the manager aggreed that the gentleman was entitled to the product at the price he paid so there is another reason its not theft . The gentleman was not intending to deprive anyone if this laptop as he was intending to purchase anyway wether he paid 1p for it or £1000 for it was still a purchase.

MArtin lewis is not breaking the law he is not telling anyone to decieve the cashier he is simpl advertising whre bargain can be found and when things are availible.

boxoffireworks · 3 July 2008 at 4:00PM

robpw2 wrote: »

It is not theft if the till scans it at that price and the store agree to sell it at that price then that is the price you pay . You are entering into a contract at the till. If it was reduced at the till to 349.00 then not one person would suggest its theft you just happened to get a bargain . its only beacue the suggestion that it was 3.99 that people are bringing in theft and fraud.

I don't think you've read the previous posts - it's nothing to do with the contract at the tills. s1 Theft Act 1968.

A.Jones · 3 July 2008 at 4:05PM

boxoffireworks wrote: »

I don't think you've read the previous posts - it's nothing to do with the contract at the tills. s1 Theft Act 1968.

So if it is nothing to do with the price that is scanned and accepted at the tills, a number of the threads on this site are not only (possibly) morally wrong but are telling people how to break the law, and where and on what products. I have shown one such article above.

So is Martin Lewis breaking the law by allowing lists of mispriced items that can be had for tiny fractions of the advertised price to be published on his website, thus aiding people to break the law?

boxoffireworks · 3 July 2008 at 4:15PM

I give up.

robpw2 · 3 July 2008 at 4:20PM

boxoffireworks when you go to the till you enter a contract with the store. whatever price the store wishes to sell you a profuct at is up to the store and if you agree to the price thats up to you.

If you went into tesco and they were selling a laptop for 340.00 etc and you then went to argos and exactly the same laptop was 34.99 would that be stealing as you know the laptop is worth 10 times as much no , would you be defrauding the store no

steam_dan · 3 July 2008 at 4:29PM

This post is basically about taking advantage of someone's mistake. How is this different to searching ebay with misspelt brand names in the hope of stumbling on a Sonny television instead of a Sony, and snapping it up a very, very low price? This is something that Martin Lewis has actively encouraged. Those arguing on moral grounds that he should return the laptop would presumably email the ebay seller and tell them about their mistake rather than snap up a bargain.

robpw2 · 3 July 2008 at 4:32PM

i agree with dan
everyone claims to have morals etc but if it happened to them how many people would honestly speak out .

I did when hotel chocolat gave me 20.oo change for a 20 note when i had bought 5.oo worth chocolate i went and told them but i think if it had been me with laptop i may not have been so honest

A.Jones · 3 July 2008 at 4:33PM

Could the lawyer tell us what happens online.

If you look at Currys website T&C, they have:
IMPORTANT: We try very hard to ensure that all information on this site is accurate. However, just occasionally, an error can occur. If we discover an error in the price or description of a product you have ordered, we may cancel your order at any time up to the point we send you the product(s) (even if you have received your order confirmation email). We will contact you where we become aware of an error and ask whether you wish to continue with your order at the correct price or cancel it. If we do cancel your order, you will receive a full refund of any charges paid in advance.

The bold is mine, not Currys.

And on John Lewis:
Order acceptance and the completion of the contract between you and us will take place on the despatch to you of the Products ordered unless we have notified you that we do not accept your order

So for both these, the contract is completed at the time of dispatch - similar to the handing over of the goods in store. So if these online stores notice a pricing mistake after they have completed the contract and dispatched the goods, is it still theft if I knew they were mispriced? If I refuse to pay the difference, am I breaking the law if I refuse to return the goods or allow them access to collect the goods?

PS. I have also asked MSE Martin and/or Wendy to comment on the legal aspects here - it is clearly necessary as a number of people, including me, think it is not illegal to accept a low price scanned at the till in store and would not return the goods once the payment has been made. If this is a legal matter, and not just a moral matter as in the first post, then this should be made clearer. In fact, the first post seems to indicate that the law is on the side of the buyer of the laptop.

moleonthemove · 3 July 2008 at 5:27PM

It is possible that the difference in two scenarios being debated, is one of deliberate deception, i.e switching price labels, etc. or merely remaining silent when a staff member makes a mistake. There is no requirement in law to speak out, if a mistake is made and a transaction completed, the loser is the one making the error. In the case of wrongly programmed tills, the fault is with the store, not the obligation on a customer to offer a sum greater than that being asked.
I have been fortunate on a couple of occasions to purchase items that had been displayed at a price that seemed a bargain. I had no problem with making the purchase. I was not to know this had been a mistake, as far as I was concerned I had a bargain.

A.Jones · 3 July 2008 at 6:12PM

moleonthemove wrote: »

It is possible that the difference in two scenarios being debated, is one of deliberate deception, i.e switching price labels, etc. or merely remaining silent when a staff member makes a mistake. There is no requirement in law to speak out, if a mistake is made and a transaction completed, the loser is the one making the error.

I think it is fairly clear that here the buyer has not tampered with the item in any way to change it's price - it has come up as £3.99 at the till. It is not clear whether this is because of a database error (in which case both the trainee and the programmer has made a mistake) or the trainee read the price label incorrectly and charged just £3.99 instead of £399.

MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Alan give the laptop back?

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free