Can Brown Thomas do this (allegedly)?

catch88

A week before BT's sale on grafton Street i saw a Hugo Boss suit that was sold as a two piece for 795.

I went in today to see if the suit was on sale and they were selling the jacket for 425 with 50% off i.e they were now selling the suit pieces separately. I bought the jacket and this only came to as an afterthought. They don't give refunds on sale items only an exchange.

All of their new stock Hugo Boss suits are sold together not separately as i had seen the week before.

Is this attempting to commit a fraud or perfectly legal?

Guy:Incognito

They can do what they like.

If they wants to cut the suit up and sell the sleeves seperately they can.

Cabaal

Sounds legal to me

aoibhebree

On what grounds would you consider it to be fraud? They can sell their stock any way they want, it's up to you if you want to buy it!

rubadub

I would say it is fine too, just like they can split up mulitpack bars even though it says "not to be sold separately", they legally can.

NuMarvel

My first reaction was that this seemed fine and I couldn't see a problem with it, but then I found this on the Consumer Connect website:

Reduced prices
Under consumer legislation it is an offence to give a false or misleading previous price. For example, if the retailer crosses out one price and replaces it with another for the sales, that older price must be accurate.

Unless otherwise indicated, the goods must have been on sale in the same place at that previous price for a reasonable time.

The National Consumer Agency monitors advertising and other information about goods and services, to ensure that it is not false or misleading.

Based on what you're saying they may not be in compliance with this provision. Are you sure the jacket couldn't have been bought seperately at the €425 price?

catch88

NuMarvel wrote: »

My first reaction was that this seemed fine and I couldn't see a problem with it, but then I found this on the Consumer Connect website:

Reduced prices
Under consumer legislation it is an offence to give a false or misleading previous price. For example, if the retailer crosses out one price and replaces it with another for the sales, that older price must be accurate.

Unless otherwise indicated, the goods must have been on sale in the same place at that previous price for a reasonable time.

The National Consumer Agency monitors advertising and other information about goods and services, to ensure that it is not false or misleading.

Based on what you're saying they may not be in compliance with this provision. Are you sure the jacket couldn't have been bought seperately at the €425 price?

As i was leaving i asked the sales assistant and she said that they are sold together (referring to the new stock.) The suit i had looked at the week before was also displayed in the same manner, with one price tag.

NuMarvel

Maybe ask the National Consumer Agency about it so, or check their website. There may be exceptions for goods that be purchased either seperately or as a set.

If it transpires that there is no exception, you can decide then if you want to make a complaint to the NCA. I don't forsee BT getting any massive fines or the like, but even a talk with the NCA may make BT change their advertising to ensure compliance with the legislation.

rubadub

I am lost now. What exactly do you think they have done wrong?

Is it splitting the suit into 2 parts. Or is it the 50% off thing?

AFAIK it they cannot say "was €425, now €212.50" if it was not €425 for a specific time.

I am not sure what they are doing here, have they just said it is €425 and that you will get 50% off (i.e. pay €212.50) right now. I am not sure if that is (technically) the same thing as saying "was €425, now €212.50".

catch88

Its splitting the suit in two.

I work in retail and have never seen this done before so just thought it was odd. Without the benefit of the trousers being there its hard to see where they got the €425 from exactly.

Im not assuming that the suit should be divided 50/50 making the jacket €397.50 but the jacket has an original price ticket that says on it €425 that it wasn't before the sale because it was part of a two piece suit sold together with a pair of trousers.

(the above is all allegedly....for the legalists)

wmpdd3

The consumer agency seems to accept reductions if the item has been on sale at the higher price for 28 days prior to the reduction in any of the chain's stores.

So the jacket must have been on sale as it is now for €425.

If you do complain they will probable say it has been in sale on it's own in Galway for the past month at €425.

If you wanted to be really sneaky you could ring and say you bought the jacket on it's own a week ago for €425 and you want the matching trousers or a refund for the jacket,

Que the sales assistant to say you couldn't have bought the jacket in that store for that amount as they don't sell them like that!

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

As wmpdd3 says they are quite within their legal rights to advertise a was / now once the item was offered anywhere in a branch of the same company for 28 consecutive days in the previous 3 months.

There is another angle though as well and it very much depends on the exact wording of the sale tags etc but this 28 days does not have to be adhered to if an item is described as being x off the recommended retail price. So in this case if they had been selling them as a full suit previously but the RRP was 425 for the jacket they could sell the jacket seperately at half price once it was referred to as being off the RRP.

NuMarvel

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

As wmpdd3 says they are quite within their legal rights to advertise a was / now once the item was offered anywhere in a branch of the same company for 28 consecutive days in the previous 3 months.

Are you sure about that? I haven't read the legislation, but the NCA page says (emphasis added):

the goods must have been on sale in the same place at that previous price for a reasonable time.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

NuMarvel wrote: »

Are you sure about that? I haven't read the legislation, but the NCA page says (emphasis added):



the goods must have been on sale in the same place at that previous price for a reasonable time.

Not too sure anymore

This is from the nca websites guidelines ...

http://www.nca.ie/eng/Research_Zone/Consultation/Advertising/Draft_guidelines_on_price_discounts_part_3.html

How should an “at the same place” reference be interpreted?

The NCA is aware that retailers may be trading as sole traders, or part of a trading entity with a number of trading outlets. “At the same place” may be interpreted as an identifiable geographic location or as part of a trading group.
In all circumstances the principle of good faith should be applied to ensure that consumers are not disadvantaged by a pricing system structure, which is too specific or narrow, i.e. whereby a single trading outlet could convey the impression of a price advantage with reference to another trading outlet belonging to the same group.
Example 1 - Acceptable interpretation
A multiple or chain-store group, offered a product at a reduced price in all of its outlets, including a newly opened store. As this store had just been recently commissioned, it would not have been possible for the group to claim that the product had been on sale at the higher price in the new store.
In this type of circumstance, it could be accepted that the group is operating in good faith, as the product was available at the higher price in all other stores.

Example 2 - Acceptable interpretation
A retail group is operating central pricing- because of limitations in the size, of some of the smaller stores; they may not be able to carry the entire product range. The group offers an item at a discounted price. This was made available in a number of the smaller stores that had not previously sold the product at the higher price.
In these circumstances, it could be argued that the principle of good faith would not be prejudiced, provided that the group could demonstrate that at least 90% of the stores had sold the product in sufficient quantities (having regard to the type of product) at the higher price.
Example 3 - Unacceptable interpretation
A nationwide retail group offers a product at a discounted price. However, the product was only on sale at the higher price, in just four of its city stores.
It could be argued that the chain store, in this case, had not given the required consideration in relation to whether the product had previously been “offered openly and in good faith at that price and at the same place”. Consequently it would not satisfy the considerations as set out in Section 43(6)(a) of the Act.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

If the retailer mentions higher price was offered in the Galway store then they are covered but you're right in that they can't just advertise it and imply it was on sale in the store you are standing in.

MysticalSoul

AFAIK any sale has to be at that store. When Ikea in Belfast opened they couldn't advertise the sale going on in their other stores, as items for sale have to have been at the previous price for a minimum of 30 consecutive days IIRC.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

There's an allowance made for new stores that can quote a previous price based on their other stores who were trading before them. ( That's in Ireland anyway - the UK law is different so this may not hold up in the north )

Bob Z

i dont think they can do this. They are selling a full suit. thenthey split it into 2 pieces and that try to give the impression thats its 50% cheaper. To me thats fraud or at least misleading

slimjimmc

Bob Z wrote: »

i dont think they can do this. They are selling a full suit. thenthey split it into 2 pieces and that try to give the impression thats its 50% cheaper. To me thats fraud or at least misleading

But are they? It could equally be argued they were selling 1 full suit but are now selling a jacket and a pair of trousers as separate items which happen to match. You often see shirts and ties matched with suits, jackets or trousers but these are sold separately.

Imo if the ad/price label says "suit" or "jacket and trousers" then it's a single item, if each is labelled separately then that's what they are, separate items. I also feel the issue of the 50% discount is a different matter which, as previously posted by others, depends on whether they claim the discount for the separate items are based on their previous floor price or the manufacturer's RRP. The OP hasn't told us the exact wording of the ad or labels.

catch88

I don't know how i can be any clearer.

There was one price label of 795 for the suit (trousers and jacket) prior to the sale and now the jacket is being sold separately at 425 (with 50% off.)

Not sure why anyone thinks there is an issue with the 50% off. Im not concerned with the sale, its the fact that the suit has been split and sold as separate items when it was sold as one (so to speak) prior to the sale.

And no, as previously mentioned there were not separate price tags for the suit pieces prior to the sale. I spoke to the sales assistant etc who confirmed that the suit was sold together.

Guy:Incognito

catch88 wrote: »

its the fact that the suit has been split and sold as separate items when it was sold as one (so to speak) prior to the sale.

And no, as previously mentioned there were not separate price tags for the suit pieces prior to the sale. I spoke to the sales assistant etc who confirmed that the suit was sold together.

Of course they can sell the jacket and trousers seperately. They own the suit, they can sell it however they like. As I said above, if they want to cut it up into pieces and sell it, they can.

slimjimmc

catch88 wrote: »

And no, as previously mentioned there were not separate price tags for the suit pieces prior to the sale. I spoke to the sales assistant etc who confirmed that the suit was sold together.

I wasn't talking about them being separately priced before the sale, obviously a suit would have a single price because a suit is a single product. I was referring to the shop being free to no longer sell a suit but sell a jacket and a trousers instead, these are two different products even if they were originally sold as one.

Think of it like a farm for sale, an auctioneer may initially offer and advertise the farm for sale (1 lot) but then decide to sell the house separately from the fields (2 lots) if that would get the best return. All totally above board and fair.

Stekelly wrote: »

Of course they can sell the jacket and trousers seperately. They own the suit, they can sell it however they like. As I said above, if they want to cut it up into pieces and sell it, they can.

+1