Misleading display prices

[patdavies]

Here we go P1.

 

If you buy something that is worth £1 but you give £20 then contract law says that it would be your choice to pay more for what the debt (item was) and so a shop can legally keep the change as they are not obliged to give change for the debt. (To do with legal tender too).

 

But it's hardly likely to happen. But fact.

 

Legal tender only exists as regards paying monies into a Court.

 

No shop is obliged to take legal tender - as in any other contract, it is for the parties alone to agree the form of payment.

[Zamzara]

Here we go P1.

 

If you buy something that is worth £1 but you give £20 then contract law says that it would be your choice to pay more for what the debt (item was) and so a shop can legally keep the change as they are not obliged to give change for the debt. (To do with legal tender too).

 

But it's hardly likely to happen. But fact.

 

This is wrong: the shop does not have to give change, but they cannot keep the payment. If they choose not to give change then they must return the payment and cancel the sale. The £20 is not a gift. Also, as stated above, it is an offence to charge a higher price than the one the shop displayed.

[rontocknell]

I have to agree with Curly on this one. I have always insisted on paying the displayed price and have to admit, have never had a problem.

 

I bought a combi-microwave fairly recently because it was an absolute bargain ! On unpacking it from the box however, I noticed that it was not a combi microwave at all... so I took it back. The assistant checked the code and found it to be correct one for the price, so I took him to the stand where they were being advertised.

 

He then said that it was clear that the prices had been placed under the wrong item... but as it was displayed like that, he had no choice but to sell it to me for that price by law... so they swapped it over.

 

I think, as you had already purchased the item in good faith and had been misled into thinking you were buying a different item at that price, the store's legal obligation would be different. Although stores often sell goods at the advertised price as a matter of courtesy, I don't think they are under any legal obligation to do so.

[rontocknell]

OK here's what TS has to say about it all: Trading Standards Central - Trading Standards and Consumer Protection information for the UK

 

Basically the price on or near the product is the price you pay.

Simple really.

 

There is a onus on the customer to watch for pricing errors, but if challenged then the shelf /ticket price is the one that must be applied.

 

More information available here: Special rules for retailers | Business Link

 

Both links refer only to the method in which prices must be displayed. It gives no indication of legal obligations in the event of incorrectly priced items. There could possibly be a case regarding whether or not the displayed price was "unambiguous" as it could be argued that an incorrectly priced item is ambiguous. But I would imagine you would have to prove that this was a deliberate attempt to mislead.

 

The law has to make allowances for genuine errors. My point was that there are certain items that are rarely bought in isolation. One rarely buys gift tags alone, for example. They are usually bought with several items such as wrapping paper, decorative bows, ribbon, sellotape etc. These are the kind of items that are likely to be deliberately underpriced on the display stand as customers are unlikely to notice that they have been charged more than the advertised price. This is where I feel that retailers are operating a marketing [problem].

 

If something is offered at £2.50 when it is clearly worth £25.00, I wouldn't expect the vendor to sell it at the advertised price simply because of a misplaced decimal point (and I would quite rightly be told to sling my hook if I did). It depends on whether it is an error or a deliberate [problem] to get you to take the item to the till and this [problem] would only work if you were unlikely to notice the difference between the advertised price and the price charged at the till ie; if the difference is slight and the item is one of a number of items purchased. Proof that it was deliberate would be if the advertised price remains unchanged after it has been brought to the attention of shop staff. In this instance, I returned to the shop the following day and noticed that the price had not been corrected. I've now brought it to the attention of the shop manager who has probably corrected the advertised price as I've made such an issue over it. But I'll check all the same because I'm an anal old sod and they might be using this [problem] on a number of items that might not be purchased so readily if advertised at the correct price.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

This is wrong: the shop does not have to give change, but they cannot keep the payment. If they choose not to give change then they must return the payment and cancel the sale. Not the case. Bus fares, vending machines? How do I demand that a machine return all my coins after I have made a purchase worth £6.10 but paid £7.00? I would have accepted the fact that 'no change is given.'The £20 is not a gift. I didn't say £20 was a gift-I said I chose to pay more for what the debt was worth. Also, as stated above, it is an offence to charge a higher price than the one the shop displayed. Inaccurate. If I were overcharged for an item and it was a 'one off' then it is just a mistake. If the shop constantly had complaints of this nature then it may be an offence for misleading customers. If you did try legal action for what was really one genuine mistake you would lose-hence-no offence. In any case, the shop may have just told you to clear off from their shop and don't come back. They are not obliged to sell to you.

[rontocknell]

Hmmmmmmmmmm!

Now, who's going to give me a hand getting all these worms back into the can?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Hmmmmmmmmmm!

Now, who's going to give me a hand getting all these worms back into the can?

 

I apologise as I have taken part in diverting your thread topic.

 

However, I did mention in a previous post that the OP was indicating something else where a customer may never notice a mark up, which is a very good point.

 

Sorry!

[Armadeon]

Guys, items on display in a store are not an invitation to treat. This was cleared up in the consumer protection act 2007 where is states items on sale in a retail environment are an invitation to purchase. retailers are legally obliged to charge the price displayed. I know this partly because I'm responsible for system accuracy in a large London store.

If a shop keeper refuses to sell for the price advertised, take a picture with your phone then say you are reporting them to Trading Standards.

[Thailand]

5. Making an invitation to purchase products at a specified price without disclosing the existence of any reasonable grounds the trader may have for believing that he will not be able to offer for supply, or to procure another trader to supply, those products or equivalent products at that price for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable having regard to the product, the scale of advertising of the product and the price offered (bait advertising).

 

Just had a quick look at CPUT....is that how it stands then. Suffice to say I've just been taught the opposite!? I pay for that course! (unless I missed the point... but I cleary recall a scenario painted by my tutor in that Next would not sell at the advertised price, and he commented what a clever girl she was)

[gyzmo]

I think there is some confusion here.

 

The CPUTR regs protect from pricing that is misleading. It has to be a deliberate act to mislead. There is a difference between a misleading price and an incorrectky prices item.

 

Mistakes, so long as they are not negligent, do not count as misleading. The seller should however draw your attention before the point of sale to the fact that the price is incorrect.

 

Mistake is a defence.l

[Turtle1000]

5. Making an invitation to purchase products at a specified price without disclosing the existence of any reasonable grounds the trader may have for believing that he will not be able to offer for supply, or to procure another trader to supply, those products or equivalent products at that price for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable having regard to the product, the scale of advertising of the product and the price offered (bait advertising).

Just had a quick look at CPUT....is that how it stands then. Suffice to say I've just been taught the opposite!? I pay for that course! (unless I missed the point... but I cleary recall a scenario painted by my tutor in that Next would not sell at the advertised price, and he commented what a clever girl she was)

This is to do with bait advertising (as per the final two words of your quote), rather than the actual price of the product.

It is the case of a retailer saying we have, for example, these wonderfully cheap televisions for sale, and when you get to the the shop, surprisingly, there are none left - but look we have this equally wonderful tv for sale which is only twice the price.

 

As stated above, the seller is under no oligation to sell anything to anyone if they choose not to. However, if they mislead you into thinking an item is for sale and you incur expense in going to the shop only to find the item is not available, then technically, you could claim expenses incurred as a result of the failed visit. In reality, claiming such expenses may be viewed as trivial, and unless you can prove that mitigation had taken place, then any claimed expenses would be reduced in value in consideration of what mitigation could have been performed. At the end of the day you are probably looking at a loss of a few pounds and it is not worth even attempting to claim as a individual consumer.

[Turtle1000]

Originally Posted by Zamzara , then Weird Al Yankovic

... Also, as stated above, it is an offence to charge a higher price than the one the shop displayed. Inaccurate. If I were overcharged for an item and it was a 'one off' then it is just a mistake. If the shop constantly had complaints of this nature then it may be an offence for misleading customers. If you did try legal action for what was really one genuine mistake you would lose-hence-no offence. ...

No offence may have occured unless the retailer then refused to rectify the mistake once it was established.

Courses for rectification could be; reversal of the whole transaction, refund of the difference or another agreed course of recompense (e.g. discount on another item) or any other amicable agreement between all parties.

 

Most supermarkets and some smaller retailers that use shelf edge pricing (SEP) will have the products corresponding barcode and/or product description printed alongside the price, so whilst the wrong product may be on display above the SEP, as stated by Armadeon display of a product is only an invitation to purchase. The SEP c/w description and/or cross-reference barcode is the invitation to treat.

The fact the corresponding product is above the SEP in such cases is merely a convienence (albeit a sensible action).

Take the action of a retailer whole places SEPs without any cross reference. What are they actually selling - The product above the SEP, the product adjacent or the actual shelf the price is affixed?

In such cases, the proximity of the SEP to the product becomes integral the the invitation to treat, as this is the only way the consumer could know the price associated with the product.

 

Both referenced and non-referenced SEPs have pros and cons. But the retailer always has the right to not sell, regardless of if the price is right or wrong. Nobody can force the sale.

 

Where the transaction has been completed, the referenced SEPs would be harder to claim as a mistake, because the process of producing & printing the SEP in the first instance undergoes a more rigorous process. Hence why supermarkets tend to be quite forthcoming with refunds, etc. Obviously other factors are involved also.

 

Whilst the non-reference SEPs give you more leeway for argument with the seller. It is usually smaller enterprises, who have more to loose or may be less informed and hence with put up a greater fight which would most likely come down to word against word.

 

If anything went to court, the most a judge or magistrate would look to achieve is that neither party is out of pocket, whether by returning both to their original positions or by enabling an agreement. In such cases, the elements of profit, expense, overheads, etc. would not be included in such renumeration.