Game Leaflet Price Incorrect - In store Price Correct

S

scuzzy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
359
Reaction score
1
Location
Johannesburg
In the Game leaflets for 27 Oct - 2 Nov, a Samsung RV510 notebook is advertised for R2499. The in store price however is R2999. What's the CPA's take on this?
It's definitely not an 'obvious' error, like it would've been if it was advertised for say R499, so that section shouldn't apply? Or are they covered by putting up a sign saying 'The leaflet price was misprinted...' and referring to the E&OE part?
Anything on the consumer's side here?
 
The other day a mp3 was priced differently to the advert, so I told the person it was on special and I'm not going to pay R100 extra.

So they gave me the price advertised in the paper.

Sucks they just put up a sign and say "Oh sheet sorry." I know of another person who wanted that specific laptop, so I told them about this and they said that they will not even waste their time going to Game now.
 
Surely they can't advertise something at a certain price and decide to change it... will make all shops advertise 'mistakes' just to get 1,000 customers visiting their stores.
 
It's a mistake, how would you feel if it was your business, yes they could honor it and maybe make a loss, but they are covered.. Yes I understand you are angry, but it was not an intentional error...
 
No @Freaksta, Game is a huge franchise and the marketing department should be audited at least ....
 
Dan C said:
Surely they can't advertise something at a certain price and decide to change it... will make all shops advertise 'mistakes' just to get 1,000 customers visiting their stores.
Click to expand...

It won't help the company in any way it will leave them with a lot of angry customers and complaints... It won't translate into sales nor a good brand.
 
Dan C said:
No @Freaksta, Game is a huge franchise and the marketing department should be audited at least ....
Click to expand...

That is true but the auditors are human too! Mistakes happen people aren't perfect. How did the vodacom press release about blackberry services limits get out, it's also a large brand!
 
Read their fine print. They are not obligated to honour printing mistakes. The CPA has got nothing to do with it.

It's simple contract law. The advert is simply an offer to do business.
The offer to sell only becomes valid when you present the item at the till and they actually agree to sell it to you at that price.
This has been confirmed in numerous court cases.
 
No amount of fine print can protect them from the CPA. The Act make specific provisions regarding adverts, and allows a very small window for businesses to escape the obligations created by their adverts, mistake or not. Section 23 (6) applies:

(6) Subject to subsections (7) to (10), a supplier must not require a consumer to pay
a price for any goods or services—
(a) higher than the displayed price for those goods or services; or
(b) if more than one price is concurrently displayed, higher than the lower or
lowest of the prices so displayed.
(7) Subsection (6) does not apply in respect of the price of any goods or services if the
price of those goods or services is determined by or in terms of any public regulation.
(8) If a price that was once displayed has been fully covered and obscured by a second
displayed price, that second price must be regarded as the displayed price.
(9) If a price as displayed contains an inadvertent and obvious error, the supplier is not
bound by it after—
(a) correcting the error in the displayed price; and
(b) taking reasonable steps in the circumstances to inform consumers to whom the
erroneous price may have been displayed of the error and the correct price.
(10) A supplier is not bound by a price displayed in relationship to any goods or
services if an unauthorised person has altered, defaced, covered, removed or obscured
the price displayed or authorised by the supplier.
Click to expand...

The exclusions in 7,8 and 10 obviously don't apply, and I doubt that 9 applies as the error was not obvious. You could also argue, that due to the wide distribution of their advert, only a timely and similarly distributed communication could be considered reasonable. The CPA isn't designed to make life easy for retailers, it's designed to make them responsible for their actions. The days of "Eish, sorry" translating to "we don't care, **** off" are over. Every case that was decided before the CPA came into effect is now irrelevant for determining a suppliers liability.

Section 30 also applies:

30. (1) A supplier must not advertise any particular goods or services as being
available at a specified price in a manner that may result in consumers being misled or
deceived in any respect relating to the actual availability of those goods or services from
that supplier, at that advertised price.
...
(3) It is a defence to an alleged failure to comply with subsection (1) or (2) if—
(a) the supplier offered to supply or procure another person to supply a consumer
with the same or equivalent goods or services of the kind advertised within a
reasonable time, in a reasonable quantity, and at the advertised price; and
(b) the consumer—
(i) unreasonably refused that offer; or
(ii) accepted the offer, and the supplier has supplied or procured another
person to supply the goods or services so offered and accepted.
Click to expand...

Having said that, good luck getting the National Consumer Commissioner to look at this case before next year - they seem more useless than home affairs.
 
Last edited:
Drunkard #1 said:
No amount of fine print can protect them from the CPA. The Act make specific provisions regarding adverts, and allows a very small window for businesses to escape the obligations created by their adverts, mistake or not. Section 23 (6) applies:

The exclusions in 7,8 and 10 obviously don't apply, and I doubt that 9 applies as the error was not obvious. You could also argue, that due to the wide distribution of their advert, only a timely and similarly distributed communication could be considered reasonable. The CPA isn't designed to make life easy for retailers, it's designed to make them responsible for their actions. The days of "Eish, sorry" translating to "we don't care, **** off" are over. Every case that was decided before the CPA came into effect is now irrelevant for determining a suppliers liability.

Section 30 also applies:
Having said that, good luck getting the National Consumer Commissioner to look at this case before next year - they seem more useless than home affairs.
Click to expand...

All they would have to do is produce the proof of the price that they sent to the printers. Then their lawyers will step in and clean up.
 
game do this quite often, starting to wonder if it really is a mistake...
 
AstroTurf said:
game do this quite often, starting to wonder if it really is a mistake...
Click to expand...

Yep, they made a "mistake" with their samsung hard drives.

All of a sudden they were out of stock.
They gave me a piece of paper that says I can have it at the mistake price, but they're still out of stock 3 months later...
 
In my experience Game are very good in regard to honouring advertised prices within reason. If a TV that should be R9999 has mistakenly been advertised as R999 then they are fairly unlikely to do so.

Drunkard #1 said:
Having said that, good luck getting the National Consumer Commissioner to look at this case before next year - they seem more useless than home affairs.
Click to expand...
Useless or very busy?

Looks like sections 6-10 are for prices in a shop. Section 30 maybe, but I believe there has to be intent.
 
It seems they have fixed the laptop price on their online advertisement now.
 
Garyvdh said:
All they would have to do is produce the proof of the price that they sent to the printers.
Click to expand...

They have recourse to sue their printers*, they can't use "the printer did it"as an excuse to not honor the price offered to consumers.

* Unless their printer limited his liability, which he is perfectly entitled to do, as the CPA wont apply to the printing contract - Game has more than (IIRC) R 3 mil turnover.

Then their lawyers will step in and clean up.
Click to expand...

Please translate this from meaningless gibberish to English. Thanks.

noxibox said:
In my experience Game are very good in regard to honouring advertised prices within reason. If a TV that should be R9999 has mistakenly been advertised as R999 then they are fairly unlikely to do so.


Useless or very busy?

Looks like sections 6-10 are for prices in a shop. Section 30 maybe, but I believe there has to be intent.
Click to expand...

OK, so he NCC is under-resourced for the volume of work they've got. From a consumers point of view, this is indistinguishable from useless.

S 23 (6) doesn't specifically say that it only applies to prices in a shop. S. 30 doesn't mention intent anywhere, an intentional omission by the legislature, in my opinion. The Act is designed to put an end to the "Eish, sorry, but we don't care" attitude of businesses; businesses must take responsibility for their actions/inactions and the competence/incompetence of their staff. If they chose to hire incompetent staff or cheap staff or not enough staff, or whatever, they must take responsibility for their negligence.
 
Last edited:
Up until now, South African law has not really provided clarity on this issue. Legislation dealt with it to an extent and the Advertising Standards Authority did not really deal with it in their Advertising Code. Is the retailer or supplier obliged to sell it for the price advertised?

That has changed with the Consumer Protection Act. Section 23 dealing with the “disclosure of price of goods or services” says the following;
9) If a price as displayed contains an inadvertent and obvious error, the supplier is not bound by it after-
a) correcting the error in the displayed price; and
b) taking reasonable steps in the circumstances to inform consumers to whom the erroneous price may have been displayed of the error and the correct price.
 
It can argued that a R500 difference is a fairly obvious error.

At least ... their lawyers would argue so.

Anyways, I would not waste the time pursuing this.
 
That netbook is giving them a major headache. Saw a customer yesterday in the Benoni Lakeside Mall branch yesterday giving them carrots. Although they offered to split the price difference the customer wasn't having it.
 
The CPA is so vague and ambiguous on most issues. Must have been lawyers who pushed for it so they could gain more business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X