fat old seagull
New member
Thread title now corrected.......
Yes, and frankly I had already suspected the Hot Dog....shifty character.
Thread title now corrected.......
Interesting. First year Law in the very early 1970s the teaching was very clear:
OFFER + ACCEPTANCE = CONTRACT
In other words, for example, if a shirt was priced at £7.99, that was the offer made by the shopkeeper;
If the customer then went to the till and said, 'OK, I wish to purchase this £7.95 shirt', that constituted and acceptance of that offer - and the contract was made.
Obviously, my first reaction to your post was to reply, 'b0110cks!' - but fortunately caution prevailed and I took to Google to find evidence to back up my argument. Much to my surprise, however, all of the sources I could find supported what you had stated.
Out of interest, do you know how, when, where and why this was changed in favour of business, to the detriment of the customer? I'd be interested to know. Incidentally, for all the forty odd years since my student days, whenever something has registered a higher price at the till than was advertised on the shelf (or in the window) I have always successfully insisted on my right to buy at the price shown - without fail! Success every time!
My first year law, as part of a non-law degree, taught me:
Priced up article in a shop: invitation to treat.
Customer taking article to till: contractual offer.
Shop taking your money: contractual acceptance.
It is to the detriment of the buyer. Mistakes can be made - and mistakes often cost you money. That's life.It's not necessarily to the detriment of the buyer. Individual error can creep in and it would be ridiculous to suggest that any price advertised was legally obliged to be sold at. By this logic surely I could go into a shop, swap a load of price tickets around, then send a friend in to demand that the price he saw displayed was obliged..
WSU North kiosk was out of strongbow by 7 pm last night and the concourse was hardly full.
Just saying.
It is to the detriment of the buyer. Mistakes can be made - and mistakes often cost you money. That's life.
The second part of your post describes a criminal act, which isn't relevant here - and a store manager will pretty soon spot that (if they're any good).
Interesting. First year Law in the very early 1970s the teaching was very clear:
OFFER + ACCEPTANCE = CONTRACT
In other words, for example, if a shirt was priced at £7.99, that was the offer made by the shopkeeper;
If the customer then went to the till and said, 'OK, I wish to purchase this £7.95 shirt', that constituted and acceptance of that offer - and the contract was made.
Obviously, my first reaction to your post was to reply, 'b0110cks!' - but fortunately caution prevailed and I took to Google to find evidence to back up my argument. Much to my surprise, however, all of the sources I could find supported what you had stated.
Out of interest, do you know how, when, where and why this was changed in favour of business, to the detriment of the customer? I'd be interested to know. Incidentally, for all the forty odd years since my student days, whenever something has registered a higher price at the till than was advertised on the shelf (or in the window) I have always successfully insisted on my right to buy at the price shown - without fail! Success every time!
Not really.Maybe, but you see my point. What if I accidentally knocked a load of products over and innocently tried to rearrange them, mixing up the price tickets? The idea that displayed price is a legally binding obligation is patently crazy.
Because the law says so. If you see something advertised at a specific price, the seller has to respect that price. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the precedent set down by a case involving Tesco (I think) are where it comes from. Admittedly the law may have changed since I last looked at it 2-3 years back, but I'd be surprised.
If goods are offered for sale at a certain price, then the buyer has a right to buy them at that price.
I found something in a local shop the other day incorrectly priced at £4.95 (it should have been £11.95). At the till it came up as £11.95 - but I pointed out that as they'd offered it for sale at £4.95 and I was accepting that offer, legally the transaction stood. I got it for £4.95.
But agree with the earlier poster - in circumstances such as the pie-and-a-pint queue, just have the right money, pay it and leave.
The issue at the club is that the tills don't appear to be clever enough to know that pressing the buttons for "Hot Dog" and "Pint" is the same order as pressing the button for "Hot Dog & Pint Meal Deal".
The simple solution is...
Customer: "I would like an £8 meal deal please"
Student behind counter: "Certainly... what constituent parts to the meal would you like?"
Customer: "A hot dog and a pint"
Student behind counter: *presses button*
Student behind counter: "there you are sir, £8 please. Thank you for shopping at the Amex, come again soon."
If you say:
Customer: "I would like a hot dog please"
Student behind counter: *presses button*
Customer: "...and a pint"
Student behind counter: *presses button*
Student behind counter: "there you are sir, £8.30 please. Thank you for shopping at the Amex, come again soon."
The shop would usually give the customer the deal at the wrong price, but it had nothing to do with being legally obligated to do so but they do it from a customer service point of view because they want to keep you as a customer so that you will continue to shop and spend there
Being superstitious I always use the same till in the Upper East to get my fix of burger and pint. I've complained on here before about being overcharged and for the Boro game it happened again. Pint, Burger & Crisps clearly marked as £9 but charged £9.30. I didn't say anything as I got hounded last time. But last night AGAIN. Hot Dog (all other food gone by 7:15) and Pint clearly marked above my head as £8 but charged £8.20 This time I questioned it and the reply was 'the till says £8.20 and that is what I have to charge'. Overcharging is illegal, especially when they have been informed about it on numerous occasions. Yes it is only 20p and I can survive without it, but principles!
Cant be bothered to talk football today, but still confident of a winning season.
Don't doubt you for a moment - just wonder when that was. My googling today has revealed to me that the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (which I think is what offer + acceptance = contract was based on in the early 70s) was replaced by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 - was that when it changed, or was it previously challenged and revised?
Anyway, whenever they try and charge me more than the advertised price in future, I will continue to demand my 'right' to purchase at the advertised price (but thanks to this accursed thread, perhaps with a little less confidence than before!)
We bought Strongbow * 3 from that very kiosk at 7:15.
However this has reminded me that they gave us 2 ciders and 1 lager to start with. [MENTION=236]Papa Lazarou[/MENTION] sipped the lager to test it and handed it back whereupon they put it back on the serving shelf to give to the next unsuspecting punter.
I asked for a cheeseburger and a pint of kronenburg, cost £8. Went away had sip of drink only to find it was strong bow, went back to til and supervisor said was out of kronenburg and gave me 2 pints of fosters instead !
Great service!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_GB_v_Boots_Cash_Chemists_(Southern)_Ltd
Here's the case law. Slightly different subject but he principals are the same.
Did the seller have to give me an extra pint ?
Bl**dy hell - that's an eye-opener. Defined by case law in the 1950s, eh - what were they thinking of in academia in the 1970s?! - or maybe just as well I didn't do 2nd. and 3rd. years.......
So I've been getting away with blue murder all these years by insisting on my 'right' to buy at the advertised price! Whoops!
Thanks for taking the trouble to dig out the link, though.