The great chocolate stampede.

It's amazing how greedy some bas**rds are when it comes to a bargain.
TESCO's chocolate pricing f**k up caused mayhem, with fat nutty fiends
clearing the shelves in friggin' minutes. Shame I missed it. Last time I
had the good fortune to pick up a bargain was some time ago now when
Morrisons cocked up and had a *Buy one - get one free* sign stuck on a
fu**ing big stack of crates of Murphys.
I left the wife in the shop and went home and back three times. The stuff
lasted the entire year and then some. 40 crates.........(packs/boxes or
whatever you call 'em). Has anyone else ever picked up an absolute
blinding bargain due to some shelf stackers lack of brain cells and misuse
of a pricing gun?

Terry's Chocolate Orange: Tesco Price Error Sees Treats On Sale For 29p After Posted On Facebook | UK News | Sky News


War Hero
Book Reviewer
Many people fall under the impression that a vendor (the shop) has to sell a product to the customer at the price advertised on the shelf. This is not the case. The advertised price is merely an "invitiation to treat", a contract law term meaning that it is in expression of willingness to negotiate. The person making the 'invitation to treat' is not bound (by contract) as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom the expression is made.

This is not a contract (something that is subject to other conditions) or offer, as no agreed terms have been made: the purchaser has merely seen an item that the vendor is prepared to negotiate a price for. The advertised price is not binding.

Case law: Spencer v Harding [1870] illustrates this. The defendants offered to sell by tender their stock and the Court held that they had not undertaken to sell to the person who made the highest tender, but were inviting offers which they could then accept or reject as they saw appropriate.

So shops (in this case, Tesco) that display their goods for sale generally make an invitation to treat (cf: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist (Southern) Ltd [1953]). They are not obliged to sell the goods to anyone who is willing to pay for them, even if additional signage such as "special offer" accompanies the display of the goods. This distinction was legally relevant in Fisher v Bell [1961], where it was held that displaying a flick knife for sale in a shop did not contravene legislation which prohibited offering for sale such a weapon. The distinction also means that if a shop mistakenly displays an item for sale at a very low price it is not obliged to sell it for that amount.

So in general terms, the purchaser has not entered into a contract until cash is exchanged for the item(s) sold. In reality though, shops - especially large department stores, for example - rely on reputation and image so will endeavour to placate customers (despite their nderstanding of the legislation). As often happens, when faced with an adamant - but usually mmistaken - customer, the shop will sell that incorrectly-priced item at a loss, in the hope that the gesture will be rewarded with further visits (and good publicity).
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
The_Caretaker Miscellaneous 0
P History 77
Bernoulli Diamond Lil's 19

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts