Rude lawyer in Halfords, Carrickmines last night

fletch

More a rant than discussion

I was in Halfords in Carrickmines last night. There was a lady in there purporting to be a lawyer and a journalist SCREAMING at one of the sales assistants. The price of an item was incorrectly marked and she was yelling at him that she knew her rights and that legally she was entitled to the lower price. I knew she wasn't but didn't have the b@lls to speak up and felt so sorry for the sales assistant. Every time he opened his mouth, she screamed at him and told him not to be so rude, the poor chap couldn't get a word in.

Anyway, how can a lawyer not know one of the fundamental Consumer rights
"The price displayed should be the price charged. However, you are NOT automatically entitled to the product at the lower price if a higher price registers at the till. As long as the seller informs you before he takes your money, you have the choice of walking away from the deal. "
source

If the lawyer in question reads this...shame on you, you acted disgracefully :mad:

dats_right

fletch wrote: »

More a rant than discussion
If the lawyer in question reads this...shame on you, you acted disgracefully :mad:

Every 1st year (1st week) law student in college will know the rules of offer and invitation to treat. And will know the case of Pharmaceutical Society -v- Boots Cash Chemist. A price displayed on goods is merely an invitation to treat (i.e. an offfer to make an offer) on the goods and does not entitle on to the product at the lower price. NO lawyer would not know this- fact. This woman was quite clearly not a lawyer.

fletch

She actually struck me that she was a lawyer but was just using her confidence/power to scare the shop into giving her the item at the lower price. I'm going mad now I didn't say anything to her.

dats_right

fletch wrote: »

She actually struck me that she was a lawyer

Well then seen as how you have such extraordinary intuition, no doubt you can tell which branch of the profession she was a member of. You should report her immediately to either The Bar Council or The Law Society!

ronnie3585

dats_right wrote: »

A price displayed on goods is merely an invitation to treat (i.e. an offfer to make an offer)

A mere poof! Ah the memories.

I love these lay people who get off on spouting the SOGSOS and other assorted pieces of legislation to some poor cashier.

fletch

dats_right wrote: »

Well then seen as how you have such extraordinary intuition, no doubt you can tell which branch of the profession she was a member of. You should report her immediately to either The Bar Council or The Law Society!

I'll get on to them this instant!

seamus

If someone is complaining to a shop assistant and claims to be either a journalist or a solicitor, then you know they are neither.

Journalists in particular have better things to be doing with their time than threatening shop staff with a bad write-up. Solicitors wouldn't bother complaining, they'd just write a nice letter.

McCrack

I agree with Seamus. I'd bet my last euro this person wasnt a lawyer, just some hyped up walter mitty thinking they know better.

Some people are born idiots simple as.

Victor

seamus wrote: »

Solicitors wouldn't bother complaining, they'd just write a nice letter.

... and charge for it.

Remember folks, when it comes out of a lawyers mouth and it sounds like a statement of fact, its only a statement of opinion.

McCrack

A statement of opinion based on professional training and expertise....yes.

A bit off topic Victor but I'm guilty of that too.

nuac

lawyers in areas where they are known do not have to make a scene or bully staff who cannot answer back to get their point across.

The great majority of people in every situations will respond to a reasonable suggestion without the drama queen stuff.

I have a very low opinion of anybody, lawyers included, who give waiting staff in restaurants a hard time. I know some barristers who are noted for this.

Hagar

dats_right wrote: »

A price displayed on goods is merely an invitation to treat (i.e. an offfer to make an offer) on the goods and does not entitle on to the product at the lower price.

As a layman that reads as a load of hogwash. Isn't it just an archaic term that really has no meaning in modern retail commerce?

The price on the sticker, if it were the correct RRP for instance, is in no way "invitation to treat", there is no scope for bargaining, haggling or treating. They want the price on the article and not a cent less or have I missed something very obvious?

They put a price on it, I put the cash on the counter top and they say "No sale sir, we want more. If you don't like it, take your money and leave". Please explain in simple terms why can't I complete the purchase at the price they offered it for sale?

If I have read the above reponses correctly they could demand more money even if the correct RRP was stickered on the item. Ad infinitim.

(By RRP I mean the normal selling price for the item.)

McCrack

Goods displayed on a shop-shelf are not offers in the legal sense, they are invitations to treat. Essentially the the customer is making the offer to buy when he takes a product up to the cash reg, the shop owner then decides to accept or reject the offer.

I mean think about it this way, If you own a shop and the stock would you think it fair that you were legally compelled to sell your property to anybody that walks in?
In addition if you had a clothes shop for example and you had a coat for sale in the window, if that were to be treated as an offer and not an invitation to treat you would have the situation where you would be contractually bound to any number of people who wanted to buy the coat even though you may only have one in stock.

And look at it the other way, if the display of goods were to be classified as offers then the shop-keeper could insist that the customer pay for the goods which he had picked up and decide to return to the shelf.

O and by the way the RRP is just that. It's always open to a customer to haggle.

Hagar

McCrack wrote: »

Goods displayed on a shop-shelf are not offers in the legal sense, they are invitations to treat. Essentially the the customer is making the offer to buy when he takes a product up to the cash reg, the shop owner then decides to accept or reject the offer.

But it's a shop, it's sole purpose is to sell things not have a "Will I, won't I" debate every time someone tries to buy something. Put a price on it and take the money.

McCrack wrote: »

I mean think about it this way, If you own a shop and the stock would you think it fair that you were legally compelled to sell your property to anybody that walks in?

What did you open a shop for if you don't intend to sell the stock for. Seriously.

McCrack wrote: »

In addition if you had a clothes shop for example and you had a coat for sale in the window, if that were to be treated as an offer and not an invitation to treat you would have the situation where you would be contractually bound to any number of people who wanted to buy the coat even though you may only have one in stock.

If the one in the window, my sole stock of the product, had a €100 price tag on it and you produced a €100 in crispy €10 notes then I'd take it out of the window and sell it to you. Again a simple concept. It wouldn't be on display any more so I wouldn't have anyone coming in looking for another. If I didn't wish to sell my window display I could always put a sign in the window that says "Items in display are not for sale, please enquire inside for details on our current stock".

McCrack wrote: »

And look at it the other way, if the display of goods were to be classified as offers then the shop-keeper could insist that the customer pay for the goods which he had picked up and decide to return to the shelf.

That's stretching the point a bit. Isn't the nornal procedure to bring it to the cash desk to complete the purchase? Am I not allowed pick up a product to read the label or check the sell-by date?

old boy

well said young fellow me lad hagar, are you sure that your not a lawyer by trade

McCrack

I've stated the law and tried to explain it in a straightforward way as I could including use of hypothetical examples.

It's not my opinion, it's how the courts have interpreted it through caselaw over a long number of years and for the record it makes logical sense to me and I agree with it.

If you just pause and think about it logically you might see why goods displayed for sale are not classed as offers in a strict legal sense but invitations to treat.

I mean I cant explain it any other way to you without repeating myself.

Hagar

You're asking me to think about it logically, by implication there is a logical flaw in my thinking. Could you point it out?

What is the definition of "Treat"? Doesn't it mean "pay for"? So "invitation to treat" basically means "An invitation to pay a requested price for an item" doesn't it?

So where does the customer go wrong when he tries to pay the requested, indicated by a price sticker, price? The shopkeeper is at liberty to put any price he likes on the item before he offers it for sale and then the customer can the choose to purchase the item if he thinks the sticker price is fair. Where does the shopkeeper then get the right to increase what was essentially an agreed price just before the sale is completed?

McCrack

Ok Hagar I'll put it to you this way and I'm not being or trying to be patronising so dont take me wrong. Often what the law is and usually the common law which is judge made law made from decided cases appears off the wall at first glance to the man on the street.
This is one example where it seems silly.

Now I had a check in Murdoch's Dictionary of Irish Law and it says under Invitation to Treat.... "An offer to receive an offer eg an ad. to receive tenders. An ad. or an invitation to make an offer is not an offer which is capable of being turned into a contract by acceptance. A shopkeeper who displays goods in his window with a ticket on them stating a price, does not make an offer for sale, the acceptance of which constitutes a contract, he merely invites the public to make an offer to buy the goods at the price stated which he can either accept or reject."

Now that's the law (not my opinion). Essentially you need to appreciate what an offer is in it's legal sense and not the laymans understanding which often is price tags on goods on shelves.

Anybody who is legally trained would appreciate this, thats also why the lady spouting off claiming to be a Barrister is clearly not.

NoQuarter

a hell of a lot of hot air being blown around in this thread:rolleyes:

Tom Young

Anyone who behaves in this fashion should be reported.

I'd suspect that this person was merely purporting to be a legal professional. I note a few posters stated it was a Barrister, I don't see the OP stating that. Merely that the person was a lawyer, in the broadest sense.

As others note, most law students would know the basics of contract law. Solicitors and Barristers should have an advanced knowledge, thus I don't believe this person was qualified or actually a lawyer. Maybe they didn't have their pills!

Tom

taram

Ah, an incident at work makes perfect sense now Had a bag in the window that was 105 euro, a child had switched half the window around so the nearest price block to it was 60 euro, a woman requested the bag at that price. So legally we didn't have to sell it for 60, due to invitation to treat right? We did anyway, under goodwill, then changed the window sharpish! If I get a shouty "lawyer" I'll tell her what I've learnt in this thread

Thirdfox

Hagar wrote: »

You're asking me to think about it logically, by implication there is a logical flaw in my thinking. Could you point it out?

What is the definition of "Treat"? Doesn't it mean "pay for"? So "invitation to treat" basically means "An invitation to pay a requested price for an item" doesn't it?

So where does the customer go wrong when he tries to pay the requested, indicated by a price sticker, price? The shopkeeper is at liberty to put any price he likes on the item before he offers it for sale and then the customer can the choose to purchase the item if he thinks the sticker price is fair. Where does the shopkeeper then get the right to increase what was essentially an agreed price just before the sale is completed?

Because any shopkeeper who arbitrarily determines the price of goods will not have many customers around for long.

On a statutory side - I'm sure you can make a few claims on false advertisement to the relevant body.

So while a sticker on a product is not a binding contract of sale and only an invitation to treat, in practical everyday terms you pay what you see.

The sale occurs on your receipt - that's your contract, if there's a misprice you can claim misrepresentation during the invitation to treat part of the transaction, unless of course, you were told of the price difference and you "accepted" this new offer.

Also just as a point of interest - the RRP (recommended retail price) is not a legally binding price, often companies will sell below that price and in some instances can sell above it (I assume - toys for Christmas?)

edit:
and to remain on topic - I have in certain situations used my "law student status" to (politely) inform customer services that what they are doing is most certainly wrong, both in common sense and legal sense. I especially noted that other people in my situation who would not be aware of the legal protection they have and would be much easier to fob off. In most instances I find that by being polite but firm in stating the facts you can achieve your goals (and in one of my cases I got an extra bit "goodwill" as they call it).

Ironically I do write for a student newspaper - though I make no claims to be a "journalist"! And I have drafted letters of complaint for relations (but obviously do not mention I'm a law student in that )

Hagar

Thanks for the responses, very informative.

dats_right

Hagar wrote: »

The price on the sticker, if it were the correct RRP for instance, is in no way "invitation to treat", there is no scope for bargaining, haggling or treating. They want the price on the article and not a cent less or have I missed something very obvious?

Yes, I think you have missed something,actually numerous very obvious things.

1. Of course there is scope for bargaining, haggling or treating. Okay, you are unlikely to be succesful buying a €90 jacket in some chain retail shop, but if I were buying a television, jewellery, furniture or some other large or expensive item (by expensive I mean €200+) there is no way I'd pay the asking price, I will always haggle and 99% of the time will secure some sort of reduction. If my offer is refused I'd just go somewhere that will offer me a reduction.

It is quite clear that you aren't experienced in retail (a part time job in Next doesn't count!) or business area because bargaining, haggling and treating are integral and every day aspects of same.

2. The law has been stated by many posters, including myself, but perhaps most succinctly by McCrack. Everything that McCrack has stated is correct, if you can't get your head around that, well then you can pretend it isn't so if you wish.

3. Another poster referred to a situation were a child changed price tags around and what about the possibility of dishonest consumers affixing
lower price tags onto goods for their own gain, or what if there is only one product left and two consumers want to purchase the item, or indeed even the possibility of honest mistake on behalf of the retailer. These are some of the reasons that a retailer is not obliged to sell an item to a customer, and indeed why the law is as stated and the principles of invitation to treat are as applicable and vibrant today as ever.

The Consumer Protection Act 2007 now governs 'misleading commercial practice' which would include the misleading price of a product, but the Act states that in determining whether such an offence has been committed the practice "shall be considered in its factual contect, taking account of all the features and the circumstances", not exactly cast iron in the consumers favour is it? Any one of the possibilities I've referred to could well be used to succesfully defend such an action .

JIZZLORD

there is always a huge difference between someone on the floor picking up the wrong pricing gun and marking something with the wrong price and a shop trying to shaft customers.

you'll never find someone at the till say "hmmm, it's marked 75 but it's actually 60, that'll be 75 euro then please"

hada

another justification for the whole invitation to treat principle.

If I own a shop, and have a sample (say a mobile phone) with a price tag on it, and a prospective customer picks up the sample, brings it to the desk and I don't have the actual phone in stock - I am not contractually bound to have this phone. In other words, I cannot be sued by the prospective customer for breaching the contract of sale.

i.e. the contract does not occur when the person sees the price tag and picks up the product in question. it occurs when It is brought to the counter and then accepted by me at that price and quantity.

hence, by the same principles, one does not have to charge the price shown on the product.

hope that makes it clearer Hagar!

Maximilian

The law regarding "invitation to treat" is what it is for very practical common sense reasons. If a coat say were worth €1000 but mislabeled as being €10, how could it be fair that a retailer would be forced to sell at that price.

To take another example, what if a €10 item were deliberately mislabled at €10,000 and a shopper went up to buy it without looking at the price - should they be forced to buy it?

There are more elements to the formation of a contract than a price label.

Hagar

Hagar wrote: »

Thanks for the responses, very informative.

dats_right wrote: »

It is quite clear that you aren't experienced in retail (a part time job in Next doesn't count!) or business area because bargaining, haggling and treating are integral and every day aspects of same.

2. The law has been stated by many posters, including myself, but perhaps most succinctly by McCrack. Everything that McCrack has stated is correct, if you can't get your head around that, well then you can pretend it isn't so if you wish.

As you can see I thanked the previous posters for their very informative posts. None of them resorted to being dismissive of a layman, why do you feel it necessary to do so?


Whatever makes you think I worked part time in Next? Or are you just being dismissive again? My only experience directly of retail is a s a consumer, but I have worked as senior management in the various business areas for many years. I wouldn't equate my experience of negotiation on six figure contracts and purchases with buying items with sticker prices on them.

Nevertheless you explained many things quite clearly, thank you. One scenario which you didn't cover is where the same item is on the shelf at two different prices following a price increase. The customer goes up with one of the old stock items stickered at the old price and the till assistant tries to charge the new increased price. This is a common example, where does the customer stand there? Isn't there a regulation governing the repricing of exiting stock on shelves?

hada

Hagar wrote: »

As you can see I thanked the previous posters for their very informative posts. None of them resorted to being dismissive of a layman, why do you feel it necessary to do so?


Whatever makes you think I worked part time in Next? Or are you just being dismissive again? My only experience directly of retail is a s a consumer, but I have worked as senior management in the various business areas for many years. I wouldn't equate my experience of negotiation on six figure contracts and purchases with buying items with sticker prices on them.

Nevertheless you explained many things quite clearly, thank you. One scenario which you didn't cover is where the same item is on the shelf at two different prices following a price increase. The customer goes up with one of the old stock items stickered at the old price and the till assistant tries to charge the new increased price. This is a common example, where does the customer stand there? Isn't there a regulation governing the repricing of exiting stock on shelves?

Please don't take dats_right's arrogance as indicative of the legal profession, what you've asked is completely normal as I wouldn't have been in the same position 4 or so years ago with regards these questions.

The above scenario you've mentioned is still governed by the same principles - you cannot demand the price shown to be the price to be paid for the item - that is decided when the contract is formed at the counter (i.e. when you hand over the particular good.) Thus, you can be charged the higher price, but do no have to accept it, and can instead just walk away from the deal.

dats_right

Okay, let's get a few things straight.

1. Whilst it is true to say that such questions are entrirely normal, that is missing the point. The law was clearly stated numerous occassions by various posters and Hagar clearly did not seem willing to accept same. The very same points had to be made over and over again for his benefit.

2. I refute totally any derogatory allegations made against me. Haga asked a question and made a statement that was indicative of point 1 above, to which I refer and quote in my previous post, and I merely offered my considered views. If I was in any way "dismissive" of Hagar, it was not intended, and was only as a result of attempting to permeate the relevant points, which to that point he had been unwilling to accept, through to Hagar, .

3. I note that Hagar kindly thanks me for 'explaining many things quite clearly' for this ackowledgement I am obliged.

Sangre

Hagar, if a shop is aware of incorrect pricing then it is obliged to change and it is an offence not to. If it is an innocent mistake then the shop are entitled to charge the higher price.

Maximilian

Don't mind Hagar, he's mostly French now :pac:

Hagar

dats_right wrote: »

...attempting to permeate the relevant points, which to that point he had been unwilling to accept, through to Hagar...

Not unwilling to accept at all, I'd guess that during the course of your legal studies you heard the same point explained more than once and it became clearer as a result. A fairly normal learning process and one which I have just been though. Thanks again, as I said it's much clearer now.


Perhaps the forum could have a layman's guide to simple everyday legal matters. I'm sure it would clear up many popular misconceptions such as I had before this thread.

Maximillian wrote:

Don't mind Hagar, he's mostly French now

Only the content of my bloodstream, almost 60% Pastis now.

Maximilian

Hagar, there's loads of information on pricing, your rights & consumer protection here. Pretty informative and free of jargon.

mountainyman

Hagar I agree with you but the legal position is as described.

mountainyman

McCrack wrote: »

Now I had a check in Murdoch's Dictionary of Irish Law and it says under Invitation to Treat.... "An offer to receive an offer eg an ad. to receive tenders. An ad. or an invitation to make an offer is not an offer which is capable of being turned into a contract by acceptance. A shopkeeper who displays goods in his window with a ticket on them stating a price, does not make an offer for sale, the acceptance of which constitutes a contract, he merely invites the public to make an offer to buy the goods at the price stated which he can either accept or reject."

There is no judge made law on this matter in Ireland.

Boots cash chemists is an English case.

mountainyman

dats_right wrote: »

2. I refute totally any derogatory allegations made against me. Haga asked a question and made a statement that was indicative of point 1 above, to which I refer and quote in my previous post, and I merely offered my considered views. If I was in any way "dismissive" of Hagar, it was not intended, and was only as a result of attempting to permeate the relevant points, which to that point he had been unwilling to accept, through to Hagar, ..

You may reject any derogatory allegations you but you cannot refute by assertion.

hada

so now that hagar's query is dealt with...

should I send the invoice or will that be someone else?.. Don't blame us, blame the economy

Fuascailt

dats_right wrote: »

Every 1st year (1st week) law student in college will know the rules of offer and invitation to treat. And will know the case of Pharmaceutical Society -v- Boots Cash Chemist. A price displayed on goods is merely an invitation to treat (i.e. an offfer to make an offer) on the goods and does not entitle on to the product at the lower price.

So true! We did this last week!:D

Thirdfox

I just remember our carbolic smoke ball ads and that Pepisco harrier jet case!

Victor

JIZZLORD wrote: »

you'll never find someone at the till say "hmmm, it's marked 75 but it's actually 60, that'll be 75 euro then please"

Actually you will - I got a microwave that was marked €120 for €60 on the offering of the cashier as it was the display model and there were no more in stock.

Hagar, another example is the Boots case. With certain products - drugs, alcohol, guns - it is rather clear that the purchase can't go ahead without approval from the seller. You can't walk into a gun shop, pick up a Glock 22 and say "I'll sue if you don't sell me this".

mountainyman wrote: »

Boots cash chemists is an English case.

Indeed, but it is considered persuasive here. Do you have any Irish case law that goes against it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_Great_Britain_v._Boots_Cash_Chemists_(Southern)_Ltd.

dumbyearbook

Theres an old saying that goes the common law is to represent the shopkeepers and business people not the employees harsh but there ya go balme the brits... (its in reference to employers liability for occupational injury afai can remember) same case here, a wrong price sticker means nothing its the shopkeepers property you as a consumer in his shop looking at his things means nothing - he owes you nothing.

Goods on a shelf are the same as an ad in the press they are held as Inv. to treat (all it is is a means for the buyer to communicate an offer - yes you the buyer is offering not the seller!), why? because if there are multiple 'acceptances' of the ad (which is never an offer unless very clear explicit concise a yes or no question which needs no questions from the prospective buyer etc.) the seller should never be sued for failure to meet the multiple acceptances why - because its his property. You are just looking at it.

It was well explained above by dats_right just thougth id through my bit in.

Min for Ind and comm v Pimms/Pharma Soc of GB v boots cash chemist/Kennedy v London express /Wilson v belfast corporation all show this - you cant argue against it!

maidhc

fletch wrote: »

I was in Halfords in Carrickmines last night. There was a lady in there purporting to be a lawyer and a journalist SCREAMING at one of the sales assistants.

Probably a woman conveyancer.

Woman conveyancers are generally clinically insane.

Hagar

maidhc wrote: »

Probably a woman conveyancer.

Conveyancing women? I thought slavery was abolished?

Amazotheamazing

maidhc wrote: »

Probably a woman conveyancer.

Woman conveyancers are generally clinically insane.

You've noticed that too?

Conveyancing could drive even the best of us mad.

Maximilian

I'm forever hitting edit instead of reply! Sorry Amazo!

I was going to say, I've dealt with equally mad male solicitors in conveyancing transactions. It's really not just a female thing.

dats_right

Maximilian wrote: »

I was going to say, I've dealt with equally mad male solicitors in conveyancing transactions. It's really not just a female thing.

No, but far more likely to encounter mad female convenyancer than a male of a similar ilk in my experience.

Amazotheamazing

dats_right wrote: »

No, but far more likely to encounter mad female convenyancer than a male of a similar ilk in my experience.

Is that because conveyancing attracts more women than men though?

It's a truly horrible area of legal practice, imo, and I despair of ever having to work in it.

Our man in Havana

It is handy if you enjoy being in the office all day doing tedious paperwork.

dats_right

Bond-007 wrote: »

It is handy if you enjoy being in the office all day doing tedious paperwork.

But that is true of most practice areas also. And I wouldn't say that it is particularly 'handier' than any other areas, as it requires skill and an attention to detail, it would certainly be a lot more bearable if it attracted proper fees though.

maidhc

dats_right wrote: »

But that is true of most practice areas also. And I wouldn't say that it is particularly 'handier' than any other areas, as it requires skill and an attention to detail, it would certainly be a lot more bearable if it attracted proper fees though.

Being a solicitor would be handier if it paid 1/10 as well as people think it does!