Bookie does Tesco's...

[Bookworm]

Yes, it's nearly Easter and despite the fact I am an atheist and despise any highly organised form of commercialised worship, my children have made it clear that they view the withholding of chocolate eggs as a breach of their human rights, mental and physical abuse which will scar them for life, and it's not fair.

 

Thus we (DH and self) ended up in Tesco's yesterday where after much dithering, we saw Galaxy eggs with a label below saying: Large eggs, £4.99, BOGOF. Great. I'll have 4 of them, please, and also buy a few other bits and bobs through the store.

 

To the till, where after paying, we are heading back to the car when I think: Hang on, how did it come to nearly £43? :-?

 

Check receipt. Horror: the eggs have been charged at £7.99 each, and no BOGOF.

 

To customer Services, where after 1/2 hour of back and forth, it transpired that:

a) the eggs were put at the wrong place.

b) there were other smaller Galaxy eggs next to the larger ones,a nd the label applied to those.

c) there were no labels anywhere for the large eggs.

d) no, they wouldn't let us have the large eggs at that price, all they would give us is a refund.

e) the manager tried to tell me that Tesco's policy was the law (mistake!)

f) I'm going to war.

 

As far as I am concerned, once they took my money, the contract was formed and concluded at the price I saw advertised and they are duty bound to sell me the eggs at the price on the shelf. Furthermore, I want them to honour their double the difference promise, AND I want compensation for the price it is going to cost me to get the same eggs instead of what I expected to pay from their label.

 

Comments, advice?

[Mr lex]

we saw Galaxy eggs with a label below saying: Large eggs, £4.99, BOGOF.

 

Says it all really, hope you took a photo Bookie.

[Bookworm]

but of course.

[Mr lex]

A nice Bookie letter to the area manager then, photo included. Mention your friend Mr Trading Standard.

[Bookworm]

Nah, more like my even better friend Mr N1.

[Mr lex]

They really don't know who their dealing with do they ??

 

There should be a photo of you on every checkout with the warning ''Do not cross this worm-an'' underneath it

[saintly_1]

This seems to be quite normal for Tesco's

 

I was buying the 3 Bottles of wine for £10 ...... got to the check out £16 ........

 

Me .. Thought they were 3 for £10 ..

 

Teller .. Hmm let me see No the bottle of Red is not included

 

Me .. But its in the middle of the section that says 3 for £10 . Ok let me change it

 

Teller . Sorry will have to ring for someone

 

Me .. OK

 

Stands twiddling thumbs while waiting for someone to come and sort till out. Finally said person turns up so we both go to the wine display with the 3 for £10 are there in the middle of the display is a full section of of this Red Wine thats not included.

 

Oh I dont know how that got there she says ...

 

So I pick another bottle of red we both head back to the checkout and guess what this bottle of Red isnt included in the 3 for £10 either however she overrides the till and puts them through at £10.

 

But that was 2 out of the display that wernt included in the 3 for £10 offer if I had bought them as part of a full shop then I proberbly wouldnt of noticed however they were the only things I were buying

[raydetinu]

I have had this at Tescos too but they usually accept that labelling is wrong or wrong product placement and give in then change it, so it does not happen again. not had them refuse to do it once it is pointed out.

[My Real Name]

As far as I am concerned, once they took my money, the contract was formed and concluded at the price I saw advertised and they are duty bound to sell me the eggs at the price on the shelf. Furthermore, I want them to honour their double the difference promise, AND I want compensation for the price it is going to cost me to get the same eggs instead of what I expected to pay from their label.

 

Comments, advice?

I was under the impression that the contract is formed with the offer and acceptance made at the checkout. The advertised price is simply an invitation to treat, and is in no way binding.

 

I will admit that I'm struggling to demonstrate that by going to the till with the egg, you are making an offer for the egg, and that the checkout person is accepting the offer. Technology clouds the issue, as the value of the offer that you are making is all but hidden from you in a barcode and price database in the till.

 

To have a case, I reckon you would need to demonstrate that the displayed offer implicitly formed the basis of your offer to the checkout person.

[Bookworm]

I know what you are saying, this is something I am working on.

 

Compare it to an online purchase. They will all have something in their T&Cs that they can take your money and that the contract is formed when they dispatch the goods, until then they can withdraw the offer and refund you freely. Once the goods have been dispatched however, that's it, even if they then realise their mistake.

 

In the case here, my argument is that the contract is formed once I have made payment. If I had spotted the difference as it got scanned and queried it there and then, they would then have been in their right to say "mistake" and refused to sell it to me at that price.

 

But I didn't and they didn't. I bought in good faith goods which I genuinely was purchasing at the price of £4.99 BOGOF. The fact that there wasn't another ticket anywhere else to indicate that the mistake was mine (which I argue it wasn't) compounds this.

 

Finally, the fact that the manager insisted that the price and BOGOF applied to the smaller eggs flies in the evidence of the ticket displayed in front of the egg where it says "large eggs". As a consumer, I took all reasonable care that I had the right item, as per label displayed, description and price. What else can I do?

 

I agree that the technology makes things more difficult in some aspects, but otoh, I'd argue that it puts the onus further on the shop to get it right, as it is so much more difficult for us to make sure it all tallies.

[gyzmo]

Bookie, I don't want to upset things, but....

 

Tesco V Natrass (Natrass was a busy boy). Basically established that employees are separate to the company. So with any criminal action, that's what they are going to use. They will produce the forms showing how good their training is, that the employees have been trained and have signed forms saying they understand blah blah blah.

 

Tesco are buggers for doing this kind of thing. A photo will be the best thing and then the opinion of Clapham Bendybus people sought. But that would not be what the powers that be think.

 

Of course, some Bookie Power - withering stares, crossed arms, handbasg at the ready may soon change their mind.

 

Grab the store manager to the section and ask him how the sign, underneath the big easter eggs can not be said to be misleading. Ask him if he REALLY expects people to read that very small print about which size eggs they apply to, when the offer eggspires (sorry - I couldn't resist!) and for good measure why the price is in big font but not everything else.

 

I had the same situation with their cheese. Unfortunately I did not notice until the next day and the swines moved the offer since!

[raydetinu]

I agrre that the contract is formed once they accept your money! I think that even applies to internet sales, not withstanding there T&C, been a few where items were advertised incorrectly and they had to cough up.

Tescos used to give you back what you paid and you get to keep the purchase but stopped that because they were making too may mistakes and it was costing them. I think you will find that this is now twice the difference.

[Bookworm]

Bookie, I don't want to upset things, but....

No worries, that's why I threw it open on here. I'm a big girl, I can take it, lol.

Tesco V Natrass (Natrass was a busy boy). Basically established that employees are separate to the company.

I didn't mention the employees, MRN did, but I don't think that makes a difference in this case, does it? The employee in this instance is just the medium through which the company creates the contract, someone has to? Or am I missing the point you are making?

 

A photo will be the best thing and then the opinion of Clapham Bendybus people sought.

Well, it was the Tesco's in Thornton Heath, will that do or do I have to go to Clapham so as not to contamintate the jury pool so to speak?

Of course, some Bookie Power - withering stares, crossed arms, handbasg at the ready may soon change their mind.

Ah, you HAVE seen the pictures, huh?

Grab the store manager to the section and ask him how the sign, underneath the big easter eggs can not be said to be misleading. Ask him if he REALLY expects people to read that very small print about which size eggs they apply to, when the offer eggspires (sorry - I couldn't resist!) and for good measure why the price is in big font but not everything else.

I did, I did... and she still wouldnt' budge, that's what got me.

 

TBH, if she'd said: "ok, fair dos, tell you what, I'll charge you the £8 and do a BOGOF on those", meaning I would have paid more than I had expected, but still got out with a 1/2 decent offer, I would have said yes. But it was her attitude which infuriated me, the "yes, we messed up, yes we're in the wrong, no we're not going to do anything about it".

[gyzmo]

With the Tesco v Natrass bit, it does have an effect. They somehow managed to argue taht an employee is a separate person to the company. So if a criminal action is taken (and indeed the case in question is very similar to your circumstances), all Tesco need do is say "Wasn't us, M'lud! It was him - that employee there. We trained him, paid him blah blah, but it wasn't us who put that sign up next to the wrong, but extremely similar items. Oh no! We know better and so should he. You must therefore accuse that employee on minimum wage who we would have sacked if he had not done it - woops! we mean because he done it! Case dismissed [a la Alan Shaw]".

 

Now, one can argue that Tesco knew of the big elephant hiding behind the curtain, but that alas does not work. And for the confused amongst you, all I can say in my intoxicated state is "connivance". But Tescos are not conniving in the law, merely producing papers that say something different to the bare and obvious reality. And they get away with it.

[Bookworm]

Ok, either you're drunker than you think or I am more tired than I thought, or both, because that just went whoosh.

 

So it's off to bed for me and we shall resume discussion in the morning. Thank you all.

[saintly_1]

Ok, either you're drunker than you think or I am more tired than I thought, or both, because that just went whoosh.

 

So it's off to bed for me and we shall resume discussion in the morning. Thank you all.

Glad I wasnt the only one it effected like that 8)

[peterlucas]

Consumer Protection Act 1987

 

Section 20

 

(1) A person shall 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

© he fails to take all such steps as are reasonable to prevent those

consumers from relying on the indication.

 

A threat of a report to Trading Standards under that Section should do the trick.

 

Also, Natrass doesn't seem to have been applied universally. In Natrass, it was held that Tesco had setup "a careful and elaborate system of supervision of its employees to ensure that offences against the [Trade Descriptions] Act of 1968 were not committed."

 

Other cases have distinguished Natrass, such as National River Authority v McAlpine Homes

 

"A company will be criminally liable under s.85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 where the pollution results solely from the acts or omissions of its employees acting within the course and scope of their employment, regardless of whether those employees can be said to be exercising the controlling mind and will of the company."

 

R v British Steel Plc

 

"A company could not avoid liability by showing that management at senior level had taken all reasonable care to discharge the duty. A company could be liable if the acts of an employee exposed non-employees to a risk to health or safety whatever the seniority of that employee."

 

and Tesco Stores v Brent LBC

 

"As the management of D could not be expected to have any knowledge or information as to the age of a casual purchaser of a video film, the relevant factor was the knowledge or reasonable grounds for belief of the employee involved in the transaction. There was no statutory distinction drawn between D, and those under its control."

[gyzmo]

There you go! eloquently put.

Now where's the paracetamol....