Tesco issue

AtomicHorror

Gatling wrote: »

Face it the op chanced her arm to because she read something on line and it blew up in her face

Yes, though 6c isn't much of an explosion. This is entirely about embarrassment, isn't it?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

They knew exactly what they were doing. Buying 6 scotters at once kind of proves it!

AtomicHorror

Jensen Tinkling Writer wrote: »

They knew exactly what they were doing. Buying 6 trikes at once kind of proves it!

OP might have 6 kids under the age of 10. A frightening thought, but very possible.

Sadderday

what about the staff member refusing to give her name and taking her badge off... that sounds like its worth an apology on its own

rubberdiddies

OP didnt come here asking if she was morally right or wrong. There's a personal issues forum she could have posted in if thats the type of advice she was after.

regardless of the morals of this, the OP asked a question on legality.
Was she within her rights to walk out of the shop with the goods having offered them for payment and having had Tesco accept payment.

In my opinion, the answer is yes. she had every right to walk out of the store with the goods having paid the asking price for them.

from the NCA

If a shop incorrectly labels something with the wrong price, and it is lower than the price charged at the till, you do not have an automatic right to buy the goods at the marked price. As long as the seller tells you before your money is taken that the higher price applies, you can decide not to buy it

this isn't exactly what happened to the OP but its similar in a way. The question is did tesco tell the OP that a higher price applies? Even if they did, can they prove it?

It's a hard one to call.
Personally, i'd just drop it, but if you want to apply the letter of the law then its best to contact the NCA to see where you stand.

On that note, if Tesco were aware of this, why didnt they change the pricing??

mathepac

AtomicHorror wrote: »

... Most companies have policies limiting that right to very specific personnel. ..

Great stuff, thank you. You agree with my point that the company has the right to give their side of the incident and / or appoint a spokes-person on their behalf.

I'll look forward to hearing it directly from them and not from uninformed second-guessers. In the absence of their side of the story, OP's version stands.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

... Yeah we're all shills. Don't need to read those awkward arguments if we're all shills, do you?

Nah, no evidence of that. The posts are too weak.

runawaybishop

Sadderday wrote: »

what about the staff member refusing to give her name and taking her badge off... that sounds like its worth an apology on its own

Maybe tesco have a policy about protecting staff from people, maybe they do not. Either way a complaint can be made.

rubberdiddies wrote: »

OP didnt come here asking if she was morally right or wrong. There's a personal issues forum she could have posted in if thats the type of advice she was after.

regardless of the morals of this, the OP asked a question on legality.
Was she within her rights to walk out of the shop with the goods having offered them for payment and having had Tesco accept payment.

But that isn't what happened. Op ignored staff and continued.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

rubberdiddies

runawaybishop wrote: »

But that isn't what happened. Op ignored staff and continued.

paulinee01 wrote:

they were recalling the 1c item to which I replied I don't think they are they are just scanning at 1c, she said she had to check with a supervisor

it's probably open to interpretation.

dont get me wrong, I know what I would do here (or not have done in the first place), but if you're talking consumer legislation then OP needs to contact the relevent people. Or simply drop it!

AtomicHorror

mathepac wrote: »

Great stuff, thank you. You agree with my point that the company has the right to give their side of the incident and / or appoint a spokes-person on their behalf.

Of course, but they're hardly going to make a public statement on this particular incident and open themselves to libel accusations. Perhaps on the this pricing error overall.

mathepac wrote: »

I'll look forward to hearing it directly from them and not from uninformed second-guessers. In the absence of their side of the story, OP's version stands.

Why? I don't see why we would be obliged to take either version at face value.

mathepac wrote: »

Nah, no evidence of that. The posts are too weak.

Then why did you imply otherwise in the first place? I'll take this as a withdrawal of the implication.

mathepac

AtomicHorror wrote: »

... Then why did you imply otherwise in the first place? ...

I don't make implications, I say what I mean. If you choose to read "apologists" (my word) as synonymous with "shills" (your word), then I can recommend some very good dictionaries to offer clarification.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

... I'll take this as a withdrawal of the implication.

I am unable to withdraw something I didn't imply.

ash23

If a shop incorrectly labels something with the wrong price, and it is lower than the price charged at the till, you do not have an automatic right to buy the goods at the marked price. As long as the seller tells you before your money is taken that the higher price applies, you can decide not to buy it

The fact that the staff member told the OP that the items may not be for sale at that price and the seller (Tesco) made her aware that the higher price may apply and she had to get further info, and the OP proceeded with the automated transaction without waiting for clarification, I don't think Tesco were in the wrong to refuse to sell the items.

I really doubt the OP would have a leg to stand on based on the fact that OP was made aware of the issue before purchase but chose to ignore staff and not wait for clarification.

Bepolite

Lets take a dispassionate view of the facts.

The OP has clearly indicated he/she knew this was going on, this is evidenced by the fact that they had an email/boards thread about the situation. The OP went looking for items scanning at 1c again evidenced by the OP.

We have to make the assumption that the goods were marked at a price: The invitation to treat. The OP took these items up to the self service check-out knowing they were scanning at 1c. Let's give the OP a massive benefit of the doubt and assume only the self service check-outs were open.

The Self-service check-out scanned the items in at 1c. This is a Robot incapable of making a counter offer. You have only to apply basic contract logic to this scenario. If the one is unhappy with the price of goods one can negotiate the price, we don't do this on a day to day basis but we can if we wish. Is a self-service check out capable of price negotiation?

So we are left with the question can a valid contract be formed? No. But what if we do allow robots to form contracts. Did the robot have authority to make that offer? Again I would say no so again we are left with no valid contract.

Lets say a mistake was made - there is various case law suggesting that this type of mistake can't be relied on, that this 'sharp practice' will not be permitted to allow one party to take advantage of another, again we've an invalid contract. Central to this is whether or not one party is aware of the other's mistake. This is more than borne out by what the OP has said, if we assume the OP has some sort of defect and really did think the items were 1c it matters not as it's an objective standard (reasonable man).

Add all this too this the fact that someone told the customer there may be an issue.

dixiefly

Jensen Tinkling Writer wrote: »

They knew exactly what they were doing. Buying 6 scotters at once kind of proves it!

Where did she say she bought 6? I seem to have missed that.

Six scooters would not be easy for one person to take home.

It does seem as if the assistant indicated that there was a problem with the price and the OP should have held off checking out at that stage. I am not an expert on consumer law but the OP might have a case but with the costs of legal advice she might very quickly lose more than she might gain.

AtomicHorror

mathepac wrote: »

I don't make implications, I say what I mean. If you choose to read "apologists" (my word) as synonymous with "shills" (your word), then I can recommend some very good dictionaries to offer clarification.
I am unable to withdraw something I didn't imply.

This was your comment:

mathepac wrote: »

We only have one side of the conversation because Tescos or their staff although completely free to comment on the incident, choose not to for some strange reason.

Maybe that reason is the worrying number of Tesco apologists on-thread here.

You drew a connection between the "apologists" and the lack of a response from Tesco. So if you weren't talking about shills then you surely meant that Tesco have no need to comment because they've seen the "apologists" on this thread and thus feel they are sufficiently defended by those "apologists".

It's unlikely (but possible) that Tesco are aware of this thread, and very unlikely indeed that they'd be happy to stand by and allow a bunch of amateurs to defend them rather than put their well-paid PR department to work.

AtomicHorror

dixiefly wrote: »

Where did she say she bought 6? I seem to have missed that.

Scooters were 1c a piece, Tesco tried to refund OP 6c.

dixiefly

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Scooters were 1c a piece, Tesco tried to refund OP 6c.

Thanks :eek:

Kimbot

Right without reading the entire thread and going by the OP's first post.

They scanned items that were mispriced at 1cent and completed their transaction. A staff member then proceeds to take these items off you AFTER you paid for them, guess what.... that is THEFT. You paid for the item so it is yours. All "Recalled" items show up a big error on the till and will not allow you buy them so the staff member was full of crap. I would get onto tesco HQ about it TBH.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

DesperateDan

jonny24ie wrote: »

Right without reading the entire thread and going by the OP's first post.

They scanned items that were mispriced at 1cent and completed their transaction. A staff member then proceeds to take these items off you AFTER you paid for them, guess what.... that is THEFT. You paid for the item so it is yours. All "Recalled" items show up a big error on the till and will not allow you buy them so the staff member was full of crap. I would get onto tesco HQ about it TBH.

I think you should have a look at some of the rest of the thread. OP was told by the shop assistant that there was an issue with the items and she went to get the supervisor. OP continued to scan - rather than wait he tried to get out of there asap.

OP should have never been allowed to pay for them in the first place, but the shop assistant literally had no choice but to leave and get the supervisor, what else could she do?

dudara

Posters - can we please keep this thread clean and on topic. No accusations of "Tesco apologists" etc.

It's an interesting topic, so let's keep it rolling.

dudara

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think that may be why they have staff overseeing them!

Bepolite

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A robot can't enter into a contract, it can be a tool to for the legal person that is a company to enter into a contract. However just because it's a machine does not negate the development of contract law.

keithclancy

Bepolite wrote: »

A robot can't enter into a contract, it can be a tool to for the legal person that is a company to enter into a contract. However just because it's a machine does not negate the development of contract law.

If it cannot do that, then when have you actually bought the items ?

When you leave ?
When you get home ?
What if the store only noticed after she left, could they call the Gardai and say she stole them because she paid a mistake price ?

Boskowski

Not what the OP is asking for but seriously this is so pathetic. Did you even have a need for stupid scooters or did you just want to get one over 'your man'? Favourite pastime for some it seems. You were called upon it at which stage you were throwing a tantrum. Just one word for it. Pathetic.

Bepolite

keithclancy wrote: »

If it cannot do that, then when have you actually bought the items ?

When you leave ?
When you get home ?
What if the store only noticed after she left, could they call the Gardai and say she stole them because she paid a mistake price ?

When a valid contract is formed.

There isn't one here so you can go hone, travel to the moon, shag Kate Moss, die and leave the scooter to your great, great grandson, without Tesco's affirmation of the contract it's not yours.

(Time may affirm the contract but I think you can see I'm being flippant.)

They can call the guards but it's unlikely to be seen as theft, either way.

Shelflife

We seem to be making the assumption that the price was incorrect, glancing briefly through the other thread it would appear that the 1c "offer" is not unusual and is a standard procedure for getting rid of obsolete or old stock rather than incurring a furthur cost of disposal.

Bepolite I think its fair to say that the till is acting as an agent for Tesco and the offer is made through their epos system, it is then up to the customer to accept or decline this offer, there is no facility to negotiate a price at these machines. Its fair to say then that the Op accepted Tescos offer and paid for it.

The Op paid for and then waited for mgmt to arrive, at this stage I think that its fair to say that the Op owns the products as she has paid for them in a manner that Tesco themselves have set up and are generally happy with, they may not have ment to sell them at that price but through their own fault they did.

They have imo no right to take the products back from the Op, they can appeal to her better nature and come to an agreement but they cant just take them back off her and decide what they pay her, in the same way she cant take a TV and throw a tenner on the counter and walk out.

I must declare that im a retailer myself (small shop) and its clear that Tesco make a cock up and the Op was chancing it (as is her right). Had the Op gone to a manned till then it probably would been declined, but that is the downside of having self service tills, If you cut the staff numbers then you basically reap what you sow.

Shelflife

Bepolite wrote: »

When a valid contract is formed.

There isn't one here so you can go hone, travel to the moon, shag Kate Moss, die and leave the scooter to your great, great grandson, without Tesco's affirmation of the contract it's not yours.

(Time may affirm the contract but I think you can see I'm being flippant.)

They can call the guards but it's unlikely to be seen as theft, either way.

Is a shop assistant in a position to form a contract on behalf of Tesco ltd? what if they are u18? what kind of contracts can they form on behalf of Tesco ltd ? if I went in with a contract to supply them with mushrooms at €1000 per kg and the shop assistant signed it , would it be legal?

Are we all at risk of Tescos raiding our houses to demand the goods back ?

TimeToShine

Ignoring all of the over analysis and what if's etc. the bottom line is are self-service checkouts considered "capable" of validating a contract? Considering that every other purchase that goes through them is valid I say yes. Therefore, we have a case where OP has purchased 6 products at 1c a piece, and then technically had them stolen.

The morality of the issue is irrelevant, in this case it's quite clear that the OP is in the right. The indecisiveness of the first assistant is not valid grounds for the OP to halt the transaction. A product was paid for, a receipt issued, and then a kerfuffle followed by the product being pretty much forcefully taken. I personally do think the OP was chancing his/her arm and I wouldn't try something like that myself but I won't let some misplaced sense of self-righteousness get in the way of the facts.

It seems self-service checkouts add a whole new dimension to contract law!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

TimeToShine wrote: »

Ignoring all of the over analysis and what if's etc. the bottom line is are self-service checkouts considered "capable" of validating a contract? Considering that every other purchase that goes through them is valid I say yes. Therefore, we have a case where OP has purchased 6 products at 1c a piece, and then technically had them stolen.

The morality of the issue is irrelevant, in this case it's quite clear that the OP is in the right. The indecisiveness of the first assistant is not valid grounds for the OP to halt the transaction. A product was paid for, a receipt issued, and then a kerfuffle followed by the product being pretty much forcefully taken. I personally do think the OP was chancing his/her arm and I wouldn't try something like that myself but I won't let some misplaced sense of self-righteousness get in the way of the facts.

It seems self-service checkouts add a whole new dimension to contract law!

What you cannot ignore is that a staff member indicated that she needed to get advice on the items before the sale was concluded. This is very basic to this particular issue and cannot be ignored.