Aldi not giving change

0ph0rce0

Hehe I love the way people say they will round it down. It's only a few cents but everybody in this country is a greedy ****. There will only be rounding up.

Greenmachine

Have heard very little about this month. Bought something in a local Centra, but rather than just give me the wrong change he asked for €X+1 instead of €X.99, this was several, months ago, I am sure I made a post about it in AH. Once they are consistent I don't mind.
Will have to upgrade my copper tin to include 10c and 20c now.

Sam Kade

delahuntv wrote: »

Legally they are not obliged to give you change at all - even if you purchased a €2 item and offered a €50 note - it would be bad business practice, but not ilegal.

Thanfully those pesky 1c and 2c are going.

What if you offered them €2 for a €50 item? It should work both ways

slimjimmc

Sam Kade wrote: »

What if you offered them €2 for a €50 item? It should work both ways

They're not obliged to sell so can refuse your kind offer and put their items back on the shelf.

L1011

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Hehe I love the way people say they will round it down. It's only a few cents but everybody in this country is a greedy ****. There will only be rounding up.

There are rules on rounding up and down as appropriate.

Product prices do not need to change. The rounding only happens at the very end

The fantastical claims of price rises are based on an assumption that product prices will rise. They won't. Two major reasons:

1: We didn't have websites with prices on them in 2002. We do now. Minor price rises get called out on the appropriate retailer threads on here already. Price rises on every product would have people screaming, with proof
2: People will notice if suddenly all their receipts happen to end in .x5/.x0 and no rounding is ever applied

slimjimmc

slimjimmc wrote: »

They're not obliged to sell so can refuse your kind offer and put their items back on the shelf.

I don't get why it's so hard for people to get it.

Now if you used the fact that, by almost trying to publically shame you if you give out about the practice, they are placing you under duress you might have an argument

A_Sober_Paddy

Very everybody talking non sense about it all being rounded up...if the change is 1c, 2c its rounded down and 3c, 4c rounded up...Thats the way it will work

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

Now if you used the fact that, by almost trying to publically shame you if you give out about the practice, they are placing you under duress you might have an argument

The staff member is being paid a minimum of 8.65 an hour - the reality is in Aldi is usually a lot higher

The ten seconds minimum itd take to "publically shame" someone over what can at most be 2c (as they round down in other scenarios) would cost Aldi 2.8c.

That isn't happening.

L1011

Varik wrote: »

For one 500ml bottle, cans, and a lot of sweets.

I was a child at the time.

500ml bottles were not £1 then nor are they €2 now

Cans were in the 50-60p range and are now just about hitting €1 - 78p. I remember the vending machine prices being either 70c - 55p, or 80c - 63p for actually years after that; and vending machines are usually dearer.

Your memory of the changeover is complete bollox. If you found yourself that less able to buy stuff after the changeover, may I suggest your parents did a 1=1 conversion of your pocket money?

There was a marginal rise in inflation at the time likely attributable to prices being 'smoothed' (as I heard someone call it).

Fuzzy Clam

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Hehe I love the way people say they will round it down. It's only a few cents but everybody in this country is a greedy ****. There will only be rounding up.

Wrong. As ive already said in a previous post, Aldi gave me 5 euro in change instead of the 4.98 they owed me.

NoQuarter

L1011 wrote: »

Its entirely accurate. I suggest you do some research before accusing people like that.

I figured my primary law degree, post-grad Barrister-at-law degree and my 3 years in the profession was enough research.

It's not accurate and I had a click on that link and most of what was said was conjecture and incorrect. There is no position in law on this at all. If we want to use contract law as a basis for this, then it surely points the other way because if we are relying on the rules of offer/acceptance then the customer is offering 49.99 and not offering the 50 in satisfaction of payment. Saying "there aren't obliged to give back change" is nonsensical. It's like me saying I'm not obliged by law to spin around 20 times singing the hail mary while jumping on one leg. The law cant cover every eventuality.

For the legal professionals among us, if we really want to examine it, then surely we can say that handing a 50 for something 49.99 can't be done as it's not the terms of the contract. Or that there is an implied term the change will be given back. Or that accepting a deal for 49.99 and receiving 50 is a counter-offer which revokes the original, or is fundamentally changing the terms of the agreement and so on and so forth.

But the original post was nonsensical and has no basis in law. It's simply terrible conjecture.

That constructive enough?

L1011

NoQuarter wrote: »

I figured my primary law degree, post-grad Barrister-at-law degree and my 3 years in the profession was enough research.

It's not accurate and I had a click on that link and most of what was said was conjecture and incorrect. There is no position in law on this at all. If we want to use contract law as a basis for this, then it surely points the other way because if we are relying on the rules of offer/acceptance then the customer is offering 49.99 and not offering the 50 in satisfaction of payment. Saying "there aren't obliged to give back change" is nonsensical. It's like me saying I'm not obliged by law to spin around 20 times singing the hail mary while jumping on one leg. The law cant cover every eventuality.

For the legal professionals among us, if we really want to examine it, then surely we can say that handing a 50 for something 49.99 can't be done as it's not the terms of the contract. Or that there is an implied term the change will be given back. Or that accepting a deal for 49.99 and receiving 50 is a counter-offer which revokes the original, or is fundamentally changing the terms of the agreement and so on and so forth.

But the original post was nonsensical and has no basis in law. It's simply terrible conjecture.

That constructive enough?

Clearly you can provide us with the law that actually requires the giving of change, then? Oh, no - there isn't one. You called a post saying there was no legal requirement nonsense when you have just admitted yourself there isn't - meaning you were wrong, pure and simple.

A customer has every right to walk away from a transaction if they don't want to not receive change; but if they willingly enter in to the deal offering an overpayment there is absolutely nothing to require them to be given change. Calling something which is blindingly obvious "nonsense" is ridiculous.

Anyone who attempted any form of legal action against a retailer for failing to give change is going to fail rather rapidly.

Fuzzy Clam

syklops wrote: »

Its also amazing how many people pay in cash in Aldi. If I make the effort to go there it'll be a 30 euro + shop so I just pay by card.

It's not amazing at all.
If like me, you have a debit card, you make one cash withdrawal a week and pay by cash. One bank charge only. Every card payment incurs extra charges.

NoQuarter

L1011 wrote: »

Clearly you can provide us with the law that actually requires the giving of change, then? If you feel the contract law reference doesn't suffice as on the negative side, you can't use that.

There is no specific law that says that, as I said, the law does not cover every eventuality.

The post implies that someone can hand a store employee 100e for a 50e item and not be entitled to change just because it doesnt specifically state in legislation that a refund is required. Nonsense.

The contract law point as I picked up on the other thread of a very quick skim (because everything I read there was baseless, especially one of the first few posts which proffered to explain it) was that if you hand in 100 then you are offering that 100. No, just no.

The closest reality to what would go by the letter of the law, in terms of contract law rules, is that if an item was on offer for 50, and a customer handed 100 for that item (and there is no intention to give change back), that the transaction is impossible and cant go ahead. If the person gives 100 and the employee tells the customer they cant give change back, and the customer accepts that, that is a counter offer and that is the new agreement. But what is not the case is the person gave too much and is not entitled to change.

NoQuarter

L1011 wrote: »

A customer has every right to walk away from a transaction if they don't want to not receive change; but if they willingly enter in to the deal offering an overpayment there is absolutely nothing to require them to be given change.

You mean, then there is no change.

L1011

NoQuarter wrote: »

There is no specific law that says that, as I said, the law does not cover every eventuality.

The post implies that someone can hand a store employee 100e for a 50e item and not be entitled to change just because it doesnt specifically state in legislation that a refund is required. Nonsense.

The contract law point as I picked up on the other thread of a very quick skim (because everything I read there was baseless, especially one of the first few posts which proffered to explain it) was that if you hand in 100 then you are offering that 100. No, just no.

The closest reality to what would go by the letter of the law, in terms of contract law rules, is that if an item was on offer for 50, and a customer handed 100 for that item (and there is no intention to give change back), that the transaction is impossible and cant go ahead. If the person gives 100 and the employee tells the customer they cant give change back, and the customer accepts that, that is a counter offer and that is the new agreement. But what is not the case is the person gave too much and is not entitled to change.

All this boils down to the same situation. The retailer is not obliged to give change.

The customer can decline to go ahead in that case, obviously. They can't force the retailer to take the transaction and provide change.

You were wrong in claiming the post to be nonsense - as all you've provided is a lengthy explanation of why it is in fact correct.

Lawyers being deliberately obtuse and difficult - who'd believe it...

NoQuarter

I'll bow out because of your passive-aggressiveness!

But I was not wrong at all. I'm sorry you can't understand my point.

L1011

NoQuarter wrote: »

I'll bow out because of your passive-aggressiveness!

But I was not wrong at all. I'm sorry you can't understand my point.

Your point is nothing further than "there's no provision in law to require change". Which is what you claimed was wrong.

If you think you were making another point, you really need to review what you're writing.

NoQuarter

L1011 wrote: »

Your point is nothing further than "there's no provision in law to require change". Which is what you claimed was wrong.

No. Based on my understanding of contract law, which is fairly complete, the situation where a store withholds change and claims it can do so is wrong and cant happen.

That is as simple as I can make my point.

L1011

NoQuarter wrote: »

No. Based on my understanding of contract law, which is fairly complete, the situation where a store withholds change and claims it can do so is wrong and cant happen.

That is as simple as I can make my point.

You've already accepted the "we don't give change/we have no change" position as valid above (post 47). I know the entire legal profession lives off nitpicking, but any sane person can see there is no difference there. Fundamentally, there is no requirement to give change.

delahuntv

NoQuarter wrote: »

I figured my primary law degree, post-grad Barrister-at-law degree and my 3 years in the profession was enough research.

It's not accurate and I had a click on that link and most of what was said was conjecture and incorrect. There is no position in law on this at all. If we want to use contract law as a basis for this, then it surely points the other way because if we are relying on the rules of offer/acceptance then the customer is offering 49.99 and not offering the 50 in satisfaction of payment. Saying "there aren't obliged to give back change" is nonsensical. It's like me saying I'm not obliged by law to spin around 20 times singing the hail mary while jumping on one leg. The law cant cover every eventuality.

For the legal professionals among us, if we really want to examine it, then surely we can say that handing a 50 for something 49.99 can't be done as it's not the terms of the contract. Or that there is an implied term the change will be given back. Or that accepting a deal for 49.99 and receiving 50 is a counter-offer which revokes the original, or is fundamentally changing the terms of the agreement and so on and so forth.

But the original post was nonsensical and has no basis in law. It's simply terrible conjecture.

That constructive enough?

Ah bless, you have an awful lot to learn about how the legal system works.

Expect a few thrashings in the district courts as you learn how it works. - College speak won't cut it, even at the lowest court level.

But thanks for the laugh.

NoQuarter

L1011 wrote: »

Fundamentally, there is no requirement to give change.

I'll ignore you trying to spin my words and just agree to disagree on this point.

If change is due, then it is due. Contract/equity/consumer laws/take your pick.

L1011

NoQuarter wrote: »

I'll ignore you trying to spin my words and just agree to disagree on this point.

If change is due, then it is due. Contract/equity/consumer laws/take your pick.

Which consumer laws?

NoQuarter

delahuntv wrote: »

Expect a few thrashings in the district courts as you learn how it works. - College speak won't cut it, even at the lowest court level.

Saw a senior open the Boots case and Carbolic Smokeball case in front of Laffoy in the High Court, so, it actually will.

SimonLynch

Has anybody actually asked Aldi if this is policy or is it just being taken as a given? I use Aldi about 4 times a week and only once (Blessington) in the last week I didn't get any coppers because they didn't have any. Might have saved a 5 page thread :-)

Don't know why subsequent post about asking them was deleted? Email sent to Aldi, will post reply.

L1011

SimonLynch wrote: »

Has anybody actually asked Aldi if this is policy or is it just being taken as a given? I use Aldi about 4 times a week and only once (Blessington) in the last week I didn't get any coppers because they didn't have any. Might have saved a 5 page thread :-)

Considering the widespread reporting of it from multiple stores, and the fact that we've got the Central Bank 'regulations' (in what form they turn out to be, I've no idea) on rounding coming in to force in 8 weeks time its fairly safe to assume its a policy.

Wheety

It has already been mentioned but every item is not going to be rounded to the nearest 5c. The total price will be rounded.

The receipt will say something like

€1.52
€0.99
€1.78
€5.40
€2.99
€12.68
Rounded price €12.70

This time you lose 2c but other times you will gain money.

Some people don't seem to understand this.

L1011

Wheety wrote: »

Some people don't seem to understand this.

Half the thread (or most of it, bar the rambling 'lesson' in British case law and offers to treat) seems to revolve around people convinced every single item is going to go to 5c multiples. Would be wise for the Central Bank to do some advertising of this before it comes in.

dudara

Posters -please keep it on topic and CIVIL. I have deleted several non-contributory posts.

If you can't post in a civil or constructive manner, your posts will deleted or actions taken.

dudara

amcalester

L1011 wrote: »

Half the thread (or most of it, bar the rambling 'lesson' in British case law and offers to treat) seems to revolve around people convinced every single item is going to go to 5c multiples. Would be wise for the Central Bank to do some advertising of this before it comes in.

Wont make a difference, people would rather believe the retailers are out to screw them and in 10 years time we'll have people <SNIP> talking about how prices increased by 50% when 1c & 2c coins were withdrawn,