Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Implied "while supplies last"

   

   DavidT, Jan 4th, 2006 @ 1:00pm

   
   

   I am no expert on UK law, but it seems reasonable that "while supplies last" is implicit in any offer to sell at a special price. I agree fully that a firm shouldn't be able to advertise a special price and only have one product available (hence why car dealerships now list the stock # of the specific model advertised at a given price), but so long as they offered a reasonable amount of the product I don't see why people can't infer "while supplies last" just as they infer "so long as the company is in business" and "so long as selling this product is legal."
   
   If they intentionally limited supply then it's sleazy, but we don't seem to have any reason to know that they didn't recieve a grossly disproportionate reaction.
   
   In a related example, people seem to have finally accepted that just because there is a typo on Amazon.com that spreads like wirefire doesn't mean that Amazon has to be held to selling a 42" Plasma TV for $24.99 instead of $2499.00. The example is obviously very different, but it also supports the idea that just advertising a price doesn't mean that you have to be held to it.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: Implied

   

   Mike (profile), Jan 4th, 2006 @ 1:16pm

   
   

   I don't think "while supplies last" is implied at all. Most cheap deals don't have that all, but often will offer rainchecks if they're sold out.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: Implied

   

   Rikko, Jan 4th, 2006 @ 2:17pm

   
   

   I seem to remember a story from a guy I worked with who also worked part time at Wal Mart. They had a large hanging price sign over some kayaks which were supposed to be 699.99. I think it was a young employee who missed a 9 and put up 69.99 - thus the kayaks were totally underrepresented wrt price. Someone came in and demanded 2 at the posted price - despite the fact that it was an obvious oversight and not false advertising.
   He walked out with 2 of them for 69.99 a piece - I believe after coming back with his lawyer.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Errors and Omissions Excepted

   

   Alex Singleton, Jan 4th, 2006 @ 5:49pm

   
   

   I think in UK law if the ad has small print saying Errors and Omissions Excepted - or E&OE for short - retailers are not required to sell at the advertised price.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   UK contract to buy

   

   Adrian Davis, Jan 5th, 2006 @ 11:00am

   
   

   I'm only a lay-person, but my understanding of UK law is that a contract between the two parties is only formed after the purchaser offers to pay a price and the seller accepts the offered price. This means that a retailer doesn't have to sell anything to you at any specific price, especially when a reasonable person knows it's a mistake. In this case it seems to be the misrepresentation, which is a breach of the Advertising Standards Authority rules, that has got them into trouble. After all that I would say DSG aren't the most respected of UK retailers, I would avoid them unless they had a great deal that wasn't available elsewhere.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment