Tesco issue

Nody

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!

Except the OP entered into the contract knowing it was wrong; hence the printed out e-mail to try to strong arm the issue; which nullifies the contract as the OP knowingly entered into a wrongful contract.

You're not allowed to intentionally enter a contract you know is wrong; the same way you can't buy a BMW of a guy from the street for 100 EUR and tell the police you did not think you bought a stolen car because by the definition of the offer made to you it is clear it's not correct and you're not entering it with honest intentions.

Dubl07

Nody wrote: »

Except the OP entered into the contract knowing it was wrong; hence the printed out e-mail to try to strong arm the issue; which nullifies the contract as the OP knowingly entered into a wrongful contract.

You're not allowed to intentionally enter a contract you know is wrong; the same way you can't buy a BMW of a guy from the street for 100 EUR and tell the police you did not think you bought a stolen car because by the definition of the offer made to you it is clear it's not correct and you're not entering it with honest intentions.

The printed out email wasn't a piece of fiction on the part of the OP. It came from TESCO's head office. Tesco's corporate freaking headquarters in Ireland. Other people have sought clarification from Tesco HQ and it had been issued by email. I'd hardly think that attempting to use said clarification email to resolve any potential issues on the part of ill-informed staff in an individual store was strong-arming an issue.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Bepolite

Shelflife wrote: »

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.

It's not fair to say that, it's bordering on the ridiculous in actual fact but lets assume it is possible. It's possible for a contract to be invalid based on the agent acting in an unauthorised manner. It's also possible for a contract to be invalid due to mistake.

Shelflife wrote: »

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 ?

No agency/contact law has developed to prevent this.

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.

Over analysis? You mean some analysis rather than just what you think the moral situation is.

TimeToShine wrote: »

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

Only to people with less than two contract law lectures under their belts. It's a minor complication at best.

Boskowski

How come people find the morality of this irrelevant? Is this a legal academic exercise or a real life issue? I think its the latter and therefore far from irrelevant. I wonder does the OP go to church on Sundays.

Shelflife

Boskowski wrote: »

How come people find the morality of this irrelevant? Is this a legal academic exercise or a real life issue? I think its the latter and therefore far from irrelevant. I wonder does the OP go to church on Sundays.

Wheres the morality issue? tesco have a policy of pricing goods that are end of line or obsolete at 1c and selling them. The Op bought and paid for them. There was a query and she politely waited until the mgmt arrived. Mgnt then took what was her goods off her even though she didnt want them to.

BTW going to mass on a sunday doesnt in itself make you a good or moral person.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Engine No.9

Too many pages to go reading the whole lot but my 2 cents, for what it's worth... If it caused you embarrassment, take em to court. About 6 years ago my parents went shopping in Aldi. My father met a friend in there N started yapping while my mother carried on. Went to the checkout and paid for her shopping. The father still hadn't finished talking to his friend and as my mother had no key for the car she exited the shop and came back in to get the key off my dad.

Just as she was about to go thru the exit door again, a checkout operator shouted at her from halfway across the shop. The operator was all like... You can't leave without paying. Have you.paid for those items??? Needless to say my mother went beet red from the embarrassment. She informed the operator of the situation but she was having none of it. Management got involved at this stage as a scene had ensued. Management insisted on seeing a receipt (which she had) and all of this taking place in full view of the store, staff and customers. Basically, she was treated like a criminal.

When I found out I wrote a detailed letter to Aldi head office which was ignored. I told my mum to bringing to a solicitor. Which she did.

The issue eventually got settled out of court but she did get a handsome sum for the embarrassment caused to her by the whole situation.

sandin

UncleChael wrote: »

Call the guards, the manager stole your property.

wyndham wrote: »

I would not have left the store without the property which you legally own. Get yourself back down there and speak to the most senior person available. You have been publicly embarassed and accused of theft/scamming apart from your property being witheld. You had every right to make a scene.

Shelflife wrote: »

So if you pay the asking price of a product, do you not own the product?

mathepac wrote: »

and they may also be guilty of defamation if other shoppers observed the incident, with security guards attending to take your paid-for goods from you OP.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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.

Above are just some of the utterly wrong, mis-comments that some people then use as "fact".

Fact is the OP could easily have been arrested and charged with "theft by deception".
Theft by deception occurs in following ways.
1. You change the price label on the product and pay the price you put on the goods rather than the price the store normally charges. (this doesn't apply here.

2. You see a product that you know is mis priced and is obviously mis-priced and you take advantage of the store's error for your own gain.


Scenario 2 definitely applies here as the OP KNEW they were mis-priced and PURPOSELY took several of the items hoping to walk out of the store after paying just 1c for each item.

So, for the OP and anyone else who thinks they are "entitled" to the goods - Tesco are in fact entitled to have you charged with theft by deception - even if you have taken the goods out of the store and gone home and used the goods. In fact, they have 6 years to bring a charge.

mathepac

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.

Neither can a regular attended till. The acceptance of payment by a staff member does. As the self-service checkouts are supervised by staff, these tills serve precisely the same function as a regular check-out.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

dudara

@Bepolite & mathepac - Please post respectfully. No sniping.

dudara

sandin

pajopearl wrote: »

Too many pages to go reading the whole lot but my 2 cents, for what it's worth... If it caused you embarrassment, take em to court. About 6 years ago my parents went shopping in Aldi. My father met a friend in there N started yapping while my mother carried on. Went to the checkout and paid for her shopping. The father still hadn't finished talking to his friend and as my mother had no key for the car she exited the shop and came back in to get the key off my dad.

Just as she was about to go thru the exit door again, a checkout operator shouted at her from halfway across the shop. The operator was all like... You can't leave without paying. Have you.paid for those items??? Needless to say my mother went beet red from the embarrassment. She informed the operator of the situation but she was having none of it. Management got involved at this stage as a scene had ensued. Management insisted on seeing a receipt (which she had) and all of this taking place in full view of the store, staff and customers. Basically, she was treated like a criminal.

When I found out I wrote a detailed letter to Aldi head office which was ignored. I told my mum to bringing to a solicitor. Which she did.

The issue eventually got settled out of court but she did get a handsome sum for the embarrassment caused to her by the whole situation.

That si a TOTALLY different situation. In this situation the OP did in fact try and commit a criminal offence of theft by deception and has admitted it here too. So Tesco have zero libel as the truth is the ultimate defence in any legal case.

Boskowski

Shelflife wrote: »

Wheres the morality issue? tesco have a policy of pricing goods that are end of line or obsolete at 1c and selling them. The Op bought and paid for them. There was a query and she politely waited until the mgmt arrived. Mgnt then took what was her goods off her even though she didnt want them to.

Not quite. The way I read it was the OP expected at least the possibility of a pricing fault and was ready to take advantage of it. When things weren't going as smooth as expected she barged on clearly in fear she was going to lose out. If she had been certain all was good and she had proper information she could have just waited for the managers decision. She clearly was in fear her bargain was going to be taken away from under her nose and felt entitled to it. That was the point where dubious morals came into it.

Shelflife wrote: »

BTW going to mass on a sunday doesnt in itself make you a good or moral person.

True, but it would make one a hypocrite to boot.

sandin

Just in case any thinks "Theft by Deception" is not an actual real offence, here is the statute book

Making gain or causing loss by deception.

6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Shelflife

sandin wrote: »

Above are just some of the utterly wrong, mis-comments that some people then use as "fact".

Fact is the OP could easily have been arrested and charged with "theft by deception".
Theft by deception occurs in following ways.
1. You change the price label on the product and pay the price you put on the goods rather than the price the store normally charges. (this doesn't apply here.

2. You see a product that you know is mis priced and is obviously mis-priced and you take advantage of the store's error for your own gain.


Scenario 2 definitely applies here as the OP KNEW they were mis-priced and PURPOSELY took several of the items hoping to walk out of the store after paying just 1c for each item.

So, for the OP and anyone else who thinks they are "entitled" to the goods - Tesco are in fact entitled to have you charged with theft by deception - even if you have taken the goods out of the store and gone home and used the goods. In fact, they have 6 years to bring a charge.

So just to be clear, Tesco have a policy of selling products they no longer wish to stock at 1c. Head office have confirmed that this policy exists. Op buys the stock at 1c and you are saying that she must ensure that its not a misprice othewise she could be charged with deception ?

So if I go into Tesco and buy the last easter egg in store for my wife at the clearly marked price of say €10, I think this is a great bargain as I now wont get my ass chewed off for not getting her an easter egg.

The manager of the store walks to to me and demands the egg back for whatever reason and throws €10 at me, now the egg at this moment is worth far more to me then €10 as I will get killed if I go home without an egg to my wife. So you are telling me that I HAVE to sell the egg back to him as the egg is not my property ?

Bepolite

mathepac wrote: »

Neither can a regular attended till. The acceptance of payment by a staff member does. As the self-service checkouts are supervised by staff, these tills serve precisely the same function as a regular check-out.

Again, lets say they do they: that changes nothing in my passionate analysis, I respectfully submit.

ash23

Shelflife wrote: »

So just to be clear, Tesco have a policy of selling products they no longer wish to stock at 1c. Head office have confirmed that this policy exists. Op buys the stock at 1c and you are saying that she must ensure that its not a misprice othewise she could be charged with deception ?

So if I go into Tesco and buy the last easter egg in store for my wife at the clearly marked price of say €10, I think this is a great bargain as I now wont get my ass chewed off for not getting her an easter egg.

The manager of the store walks to to me and demands the egg back for whatever reason and throws €10 at me, now the egg at this moment is worth far more to me then €10 as I will get killed if I go home without an egg to my wife. So you are telling me that I HAVE to sell the egg back to him as the egg is not my property ?

The items aren't marked at 1c, they scan at 1c. That is the difference.

Bepolite

Shelflife wrote: »

So just to be clear, Tesco have a policy of selling products they no longer wish to stock at 1c. Head office have confirmed that this policy exists. Op buys the stock at 1c and you are saying that she must ensure that its not a misprice othewise she could be charged with deception ?

So if I go into Tesco and buy the last easter egg in store for my wife at the clearly marked price of say €10, I think this is a great bargain as I now wont get my ass chewed off for not getting her an easter egg.

The manager of the store walks to to me and demands the egg back for whatever reason and throws €10 at me, now the egg at this moment is worth far more to me then €10 as I will get killed if I go home without an egg to my wife. So you are telling me that I HAVE to sell the egg back to him as the egg is not my property ?

That's not the situation though. Let's say the easter egg was marked at 1c you're 100% in the right. No one challenges you and you put you're 1c into the machine. It's yours.

Now if the easter egg was marked at €10 and the till said 1c and you continued anyway - doubt creeps in as to the validity of the contract. however formed. Add to this a staff member querying it. Now add the fact that you were on the interbweb saw this going on and purposefully went in there to get 1c easter eggs.

I'm sorry but how anyone thinks this is something that would be legal it beyond me.

You're also not selling anything back. The initial contract was void and the person retains ownership of the property it never became your just as the 1c never became their's.

Sam Mac

Ring Tesco customer service. Tell them what happened and how you were treated. Describe the assistant manager to them if you can. You can reasonably expect a sincere apology and possibly the goods you paid for, if available. The way you were treated was atrocious. Hopefully the person will get reprimanded by head office, or the main manager.

Shelflife

Bepolite wrote: »

That's not the situation though. Let's say the easter egg was marked at 1c you're 100% in the right. No one challenges you and you put you're 1c into the machine. It's yours.

Now if the easter egg was marked at €10 and the till said 1c and you continued anyway - doubt creeps in as to the validity of the contract. however formed. Add to this a staff member querying it. Now add the fact that you were on the interbweb saw this going on and purposefully went in there to get 1c easter eggs.

I'm sorry but how anyone thinks this is something that would be legal it beyond me.

You're also not selling anything back. The initial contract was void and the person retains ownership of the property it never became your just as the 1c never became their's.

where does anyone say that the items were marked at any other price other than 1c?

My reply was more aimed at Sandin who said that my comment

So if you pay the asking price of a product, do you not own the product?

was "utterly wrong".

mathepac

Bepolite wrote: »

How very Derridian of you. ...

I prefer Derridean. That aside there is little to deconstruct.

Bepolite wrote: »

... Aren't you making an assumption on my assumptions and my ability to be objective? ...

I make no assumptions. A call for a review of facts cannot by definition include those things which are not facts (i.e. hearsay, rumours, assumptions, opinions, implications, inferences, etc).

A review of the facts in this case must be limited to those facts given by the OP in relation to the transaction. She is the only reporter or observer.

Bepolite wrote: »

...
That aside, my assumption there are prices in Tesco is hardly controversial.

That was not the only assumption you made. But "there are prices in Tesco" may be true but it is imprecise as "not all items in Tesco have prices" is also true but "all prices for items in Tesco are correct" is not true.

Posted before I saw this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89169218&postcount=107

In any case not 'sniping' IMHO

Bepolite

Shelflife wrote: »

where does anyone say that the items were marked at any other price other than 1c?

My reply was more aimed at Sandin who said that my comment

So if you pay the asking price of a product, do you not own the product?

was "utterly wrong".

Sorry you've lost me ( the danger with starting to introduce all sorts of analogies, similes, metaphors and my particular offence anecdotes) are you referring to your scenario or the OP?

Kristopherus

sandin wrote: »

That si a TOTALLY different situation. In this situation the OP did in fact try and commit a criminal offence of theft by deception and has admitted it here too. So Tesco have zero libel as the truth is the ultimate defence in any legal case.

sandin wrote: »

Just in case any thinks "Theft by Deception" is not an actual real offence, here is the statute book

Making gain or causing loss by deception.

6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.

I think you are misreading the issue. The reductions to 1c by Tesco has been applied nationwide by Tesco.A lot of posters on Boards have availed of the offer.Tesco are at fault for not communicating clearly to its staff what should be done to/with items marked at 1c. By that failure they have caused confusion among their managers. Tesco's corporate Customer Care confirmed Tesco's policy in the email to a Boardie. In this case Tesco staff have behaved abominably. The OP was perfectly entitled to process her purchase through the automated till. Tesco staff were wrong in their actions. Perhaps if the OP walked out the door with her purchase, we may not be on this thread at all.

Shelflife

Bepolite wrote: »

Sorry you've lost me ( the danger with starting to introduce all sorts of analogies, similes, metaphors and my particular offence anecdotes) are you referring to your scenario or the OP?

i was referring to the Ops senario.

Sam Mac

Gatling wrote: »

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

It was Tesco's fault. Surely they knew about the 'error' after so many people taking advantage of it? They did nothing to adjust the price on the stock which was priced incorrectly. The OP is not in the wrong here. I would have 'chanced my arm' too if I knew about 1c items in any store, pricing error or not.

mathepac

sandin wrote: »

...
Making gain or causing loss by deception.

6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.

A customer uses a Tesco (or manufacturer[s) bar-code affixed to an item in Tescos at a Tesco-supplied check-out and pays the bill the till totals up and gets a till receipt. Where is the deception?

Bepolite

paulineo1 wrote: »

Hi, I'm not sure which section to write this but here it goes: was in Tesco earlier today and found some items scanning at 1c so I put them in my trolley and along with a few groceries went to the self check out, while I was scanning the items a young assistant came up and told me that 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. I continued to scan my items and by the time they returned had paid for all my shopping, the manager took the items and said they are not for sale, I told her that I had already purchased them and showed her my receipt. She told me under no circumstances was I leaving the store with them. I referred to an email saying tesco are allowing 1c items go through and that it's ok to sell. She got security down, and there was abit if a scene, she refused to give me her name and walked off with my items. I called her back to ask for her name and to speak with the store manager, she removed her badge and at this stage customers were starting to watch. She tried to refund me 6c to which I refused as I wanted my items. I was getting nowhere with her so I left with my receipt and without my items or the "refund". I was told to customer service if I had a problem, it was so embarrassing. Does anyone know what my rights are?? Do I take it further? Am I entitled to the items?? Not sure what way to go but am fuming at the way I was treated!! Advise would be really appreciated.

mathepac wrote: »

I prefer Derridean. That aside there is little to deconstruct.
I make no assumptions. A call for a review of facts cannot by definition include those things which are not facts (i.e. hearsay, rumours, assumptions, opinions, implications, inferences, etc).

A review of the facts in this case must be limited to those facts given by the OP in relation to the transaction. She is the only reporter or observer.
That was not the only assumption you made. But "there are prices in Tesco" may be true but it is imprecise as "not all items in Tesco have prices" is also true but "all prices for items in Tesco are correct" is not true.

So let us stick to the facts. Under Irish law (because the OP might have been in Tesco in Poland and it wouldn't be the first time their pesky civil law system has caused us trouble) an agent of the store has told the that there may be an issue in relation to the products. This is a fact correct?

The OP has prior knowledge that this is going on as they are referring to e-mails? Again have I got this correct?

The 'reasonable-man' would not assume scooters are 1c - again this is a fact, open to interpretation but you'll have to put yourself on the Clapam omnibus for me here.

The above are ingredients to a unilateral mistake, taken advantage of by the OP. Case law is clear such sharp practice will not be looked up favourably - paraphrasing from McDermott.

Bepolite

Shelflife wrote: »

i was referring to the Ops senario.

See post #124 above if you are in Mathpac's purest camp of debate, that is meant with respect, it's perfectly reasonable to not want to debate assumptions.