ANOTHER query about print errors

[Azbubu]

So what's the verdict on print errors? Are shops supposed to accept responsibility?

Saw a MacBook AND iPad at Dion for R1500. Yes it's an obvious mistake and they'd go bankrupt for honoring that unless they say they have no stock.

 

[Sinbad]

The ad probably says E&OE in the terms.

 

[HapticSimian]

Norrachance they'd be compelled to honour that price, and you'd be an ass to try as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Drunkard #1]

So what's the verdict on print errors? Are shops supposed to accept responsibility?

Saw a MacBook AND iPad at Dion for R1500. Yes it's an obvious mistake and they'd go bankrupt for honoring that unless they say they have no stock.

No verdict yet, the NCC is sloooooooooow. Like > 8 months to acknowledge a complaint.

The "no stock" trick also has consequences. No verdict on that either.

The ad probably says E&OE in the terms.

They've stopped doing that. I think the E&OE line could be seen as trying to exclude their ad from the terms of the CPA, which would be illegal and punishable.

Norrachance they'd be compelled to honour that price, and you'd be an ass to try as far as I'm concerned.

The verdict is still out. If you think there's no chance of it being enforced, you've been living under a rock for the past 8 months.

Contrary to popular belief, there's no law against being an ass, and I for one don't live my life "trying not to be an ass". Deal with it.

 

[Azbubu]

I'm not really going to bother trying anyway.

And even if I had, I don't think it's being an ass. Sure if it was a personal ad on Gumtree then maybe, but Dion? No.

 

[HapticSimian]

The verdict is still out. If you think there's no chance of it being enforced, you've been living under a rock for the past 8 months.

Contrary to popular belief, there's no law against being an ass, and I for one don't live my life "trying not to be an ass". Deal with it.

'k, Skippy. You try getting any retailer to give something to you at what is probably 10% its retail value... or convincing anyone who'd care enough to listen that such an error was not 'inadvertent and obvious' (in the words of the CPA). At first mention of it to anyone in the store, someone'd be barrelling down the aisle in order to replace the incorrectly displayed price.

But do please let us know how your attempt pans out if and when the opportunity presents itself.

Part of why the NCC has a supposed 8-month backlog is probably because of people thinking the world owes them its small change, and DION owes them its entire stock of MacBooks.

 

[Drunkard #1]

'k, Skippy. You try getting any retailer to give something to you at what is probably 10% its retail value... or convincing anyone who'd care enough to listen that such an error was not (in the words of the CPA). At first mention of it to anyone in the store, someone'd be barrelling down the aisle in order to replace the incorrectly displayed price.

But do please let us know how your attempt pans out if and when the opportunity presents itself.

Part of why the NCC has a supposed 8-month backlog is probably because of people thinking the world owes them its small change, and DION owes them its entire stock of MacBooks.

I see that you're one of those people who considers "being an ass" to be the most heinous crime imaginable, and that all other laws are just trivia.

So...

point out the section of the CPA which uses the words "inadvertent and obvious" WITH REFERENCE TO AN AD. You can't because that section refers to store signage, not ads. Also note how it says that the price is ENFORCEABLE until ...

I'll let you know how my attempt goes after the NCC gives an opinion on the matter. I'm an ass, not an idiot with too much time on my hands.

If a multi billion rand group doesn't want to pay competent people to check their ads, then they DO owe me a fisher price laptop and pad at R 1 500. That's the law. The NCC is swamped because of retailers trying to duck and dive their new responsibilities, and continuing to abuse consumers.

Have I mentioned that I hate retailers? Now there's a bunch of ass holes for you to growl at.

 

[HapticSimian]

I see that you're one of those people who considers "being an ass" to be the most heinous crime imaginable, and that all other laws are just trivia.

Do you now...? Seems to me you're merely exhibiting exactly the type of presumptuous thinking that would lead you to believe you'd have a leg to stand on in a case like this.

So...

point out the section of the CPA which uses the words "inadvertent and obvious" WITH REFERENCE TO AN AD. You can't because that section refers to store signage, not ads. Also note how it says that the price is ENFORCEABLE until ...

So...

point out the section of the CPA that specifies the words "inadvertent and obvious" apply ONLY TO IN-STORE SIGNAGE. You can't because the section is not clearly worded, which would necessitate an interpretation as to the intention of the law. A reasonable interpretation would be that it applies to ads as well, especially seeing that subsection (5) on the same page makes mention of "...the catalogue, brochure, circular or similar form of publication...". You should get to know your friend in legalese, the Reasonable Man, although I suspect you wouldn't like him much.

I'll let you know how my attempt goes after the NCC gives an opinion on the matter. I'm an ass, not an idiot with too much time on my hands.

Please do, assuming your particular case relates to claiming a price of 10% the normal retail value; otherwise it is wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Further, you're making a distinction you have yet to illustrate...

If a multi billion rand group doesn't want to pay competent people to check their ads, then they DO owe me a fisher price laptop and pad at R 1 500. That's the law. The NCC is swamped because of retailers trying to duck and dive their new responsibilities, and continuing to abuse consumers.

Undoubtedly to a large degree... but also in part because moron Joe Public thought the CPA was the golden ticket to ripping the big, evil retailers a new one, and gets all sulky when he finds out it isn't quite the free lunch he thought it'd be.

Have I mentioned that I hate retailers? Now there's a bunch of ass holes for you to growl at.

Grrrrrrrrrrr...

 

[Wall]

Correct me. If I am wrong, but. Provided that they correct the price and give sufficient notice to the public. With reference to the error, they are not obliged. To honour. That price.

 

[Drunkard #1]

Correct me. If I am wrong, but. Provided that they correct the price and give sufficient notice to the public. With reference to the error, they are not obliged. To honour. That price.

As we've been discussing:

1. That's from the section dealing with display prices (and brochures, etc.), not adverts. The section on adverts has no such "loophole".
2. The section mentions "reasonable steps" or something to that effect, and those steps haven't been defined. (What are reasonable steps, when an a brochure has had 500 000 copies distributed? I don't consider a sign at the door "reasonable steps".)
3. The price is only "voided" once those steps have been taken, and is enforceable until then.

 

[HapticSimian]

As we've been discussing:

1. That's from the section dealing with display prices (and brochures, etc.), not adverts. The section on adverts has no such "loophole".
2. The section mentions "reasonable steps" or something to that effect, and those steps haven't been defined. (What are reasonable steps, when an a brochure has had 500 000 copies distributed? I don't consider a sign at the door "reasonable steps".)
3. The price is only "voided" once those steps have been taken, and is enforceable until then.

1. No such distinction is made as the Act is written.
2. What is reasonable will depend on, as you allude, the circumstances.
3. The only thing that can be enforced is that the error must be rectified. There will be no grounds on which to demand a 'deal' as that mentioned in the OP.

 

[Drunkard #1]

1. No such distinction is made as the Act is written.
2. What is reasonable will depend on, as you allude, the circumstances.
3. The only thing that can be enforced is that the error must be rectified. There will be no grounds on which to demand a 'deal' as that mentioned in the OP.

1. Read S. 30
2. I suspect that a court will have to decide this.
3.

(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.

Not exactly rocket science, but to simplify the supplier IS bound to sell the goods at the display price UNTIL he has taken the steps mentioned in (9)(b).

 

[HapticSimian]

1. Read S. 30
2. I suspect that a court will have to decide this.
3.

Not exactly rocket science, but to simplify the supplier IS bound to sell the goods at the display price UNTIL he has taken the steps mentioned in (9)(b).

1. Lulz. Equating an obvious error with intentional bait marketing...
2. ...if they ever get 'round to it.
3. ...and the supplier will, in all likelihood, RECTIFY the error BEFORE concluding the transaction.

 

[Drunkard #1]

1. Lulz. Equating an obvious error with intentional bait marketing...
2. ...if they ever get 'round to it.
3. ...and the supplier will, in all likelihood, RECTIFY the error BEFORE concluding the transaction.

1. The law doesn't make a distinction, so neither will the courts. Nowhere in S. 30 does it say, "except for obvious errors", and that's intentional, because that would render the section toothless.
2. They'll get round to it sooner rather than later. And if that's your defence, you've already lost.
3. Yeah, they're going to re-publish a brochure with a print run of 500 000 while the customer waits. Because the way I see it, that's what "reasonable steps" means. The courts will decide.

 

[HapticSimian]

1. The law doesn't make a distinction, so neither will the courts. Nowhere in S. 30 does it say, "except for obvious errors", and that's intentional, because that would render the section toothless.
2. They'll get round to it sooner rather than later. And if that's your defence, you've already lost.
3. Yeah, they're going to re-publish a brochure with a print run of 500 000 while the customer waits. Because the way I see it, that's what "reasonable steps" means. The courts will decide.

1. The very concept of bait marketing implies intent.
2. Defence for what? I'm not the one crying because someone made a typo.
3. That's not reasonable, that's Utopian. A sign by the door, an email to their mailing list if they have one, perhaps even a little concessionary discount; that's reasonable. As I've said, I await the court's decision with bated breath

 

[Drunkard #1]

1. The very concept of bait marketing implies intent.
2. Defence for what? I'm not the one crying because someone made a typo.
3. That's not reasonable, that's Utopian. A sign by the door, an email to their mailing list if they have one, perhaps even a little concessionary discount; that's reasonable. As I've said, I await the court's decision with bated breath

1. How do you prove intent? If the act wanted to limit S. 30 to "intentional mistakes" it would have. It doesn't, probably to avoid forming a ****ing huge loophole which would render the whole section moot. So, simple at that, the section applies to all adverts.
2. Huh?
3.

(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.

Ja, I don't think your suggestion is going to cut it. Best case, they'll have to put up a prominent notice on their website (like half the front page) and take out prominent ads in local papers informing the public of the error, and if they want the error corrected before the weekend, those ads will have to be in the big daily papers. The wording is "inform consumers to whom the erroneous price may have been displayed", not "inform consumers who arrive to take advantage of the offer". In any case, Massmart regularly marks down goods by 50% or more, which makes anything less than 50% markdown NOT obvious, so SS. 9 can't apply.

 

[HapticSimian]

1. How do you prove intent? If the act wanted to limit S. 30 to "intentional mistakes" it would have. It doesn't, probably to avoid forming a ****ing huge loophole which would render the whole section moot. So, simple at that, the section applies to all adverts.
2. Huh?
3.
Ja, I don't think your suggestion is going to cut it. Best case, they'll have to put up a prominent notice on their website (like half the front page) and take out prominent ads in local papers informing the public of the error, and if they want the error corrected before the weekend, those ads will have to be in the big daily papers. The wording is "inform consumers to whom the erroneous price may have been displayed", not "inform consumers who arrive to take advantage of the offer". In any case, Massmart regularly marks down goods by 50% or more, which makes anything less than 50% markdown NOT obvious, so SS. 9 can't apply.

1. Bait marketing as a concept implicitly requires intent; I don't see how this is unclear. If that renders the section by and large "toothless" then so be it - just another not terribly well thought out bit of legislation.
2. I'm not personally invested in this; I don't really give a ****. The wheels of justice turn slowly, and they're square.
3. Bankruptcy-inducing ≠ reasonable. This thread deals with a bundle being shown as retailing at 10%, most likely, of its normal price. As I've said repeatedly, unless the little war you're fighting is anywhere close to that your involvement in this discussion, and the points you attempt to make, are wholly irrelevant.

 

[Drunkard #1]

1. Bait marketing as a concept implicitly requires intent; I don't see how this is unclear. If that renders the section by and large "toothless" then so be it - just another not terribly well thought out bit of legislation.
2. I'm not personally invested in this; I don't really give a ****. The wheels of justice turn slowly, and they're square.
3. Bankruptcy-inducing ≠ reasonable. This thread deals with a bundle being shown as retailing at 10%, most likely, of its normal price. As I've said repeatedly, unless the little war you're fighting is anywhere close to that your involvement in this discussion, and the points you attempt to make, are wholly irrelevant.

1. Bait marketing is the heading, and headings are quickly ignored by the courts if they cause confusion. It might even be explicitly stated in the act that the headings are there for information only and are to be ignored when interpreting the sections. The section is perfectly clear - no get out of jail free card for "unintentional" (yeah, right) errors, so the section isn't toothless.
2. Me neither, but my hatred of retailers has me here answering the OPs question as any attorney representing the consumer would.
3. Everyone knows the rules. The act's been effective for more than 8 months, and was passed over 2 years ago, and was in bill form for a few years before that. If a store risks their solvency by not checking their brochures, that that's their shareholder's and auditor's problem, not the consumer's. They'll soon decide that it's cheaper to hire competent people to check their ads. I mentioned my interpretation of the "obvious" clause for people who are reading this thread and wondering about other "mistakes", it doesn't apply here.

 

[HapticSimian]

1. Bait marketing is the heading, and headings are quickly ignored by the courts if they cause confusion. It might even be explicitly stated in the act that the headings are there for information only and are to be ignored when interpreting the sections. The section is perfectly clear - no get out of jail free card for "unintentional" (yeah, right) errors, so the section isn't toothless.
2. Me neither, but my hatred of retailers has me here answering the OPs question as any attorney representing the consumer would.
3. Everyone knows the rules. The act's been effective for more than 8 months, and was passed over 2 years ago, and was in bill form for a few years before that. If a store risks their solvency by not checking their brochures, that that's their shareholder's and auditor's problem, not the consumer's. They'll soon decide that it's cheaper to hire competent people to check their ads. I mentioned my interpretation of the "obvious" clause for people who are reading this thread and wondering about other "mistakes", it doesn't apply here.

1. An Act applies in its entirety to a relevant set of circumstances. We aren't dealing with the Junkmail, Pamphlets and Brochures Act and the Printed in the Back Room In-Store Signage Act. The whole act applies, and the intention must be sought through interpretation. Your interpretation is unreasonable.
2. Pro bono, clearly.
3. Until a court says otherwise, it does.

 

[schumi]

http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/cons...ed-price-isn-t-right-who-has-to-pay-1.1227794
"The issue is also dealt with under the law of contract.
One party must make a firm offer to another, which may be accepted or rejected.
When an incorrect price is discovered, the store owner has the right to refuse to accept the offer of payment from a customer, so no contract is formed."

This mistake is also covered in the article.