not to be sold separately

refusetolose

the local shop is selling chocolate bars with "not to be sold separately" printed on them,they are being sold separately

whats the deal here?

is it illegal?
should he be reported?

as far as i know the bars with "not to be sold separately" are actually smaller than the ones that can be sold separately

Mr. Presentable

It's not illegal. The supplier could be notified, as it is his brief, but to what end to you, I don't know.

refusetolose

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

It's not illegal. The supplier could be notified, as it is his brief, but to what end to you, I don't know.

thanks man,really pisses me off seeing that kinda s***

donstavros

Cut the shop a break... do you not have anything better to do then complain about unimportant stuff.

The "not to be sold seperately" label is the manufacturer trying to control sales. Sure the bars are smaller but if a person has no problem paying for them just let it go.

The country is up the swanny and you're busting some shop keepers chops for splitting a multi-pack of chocolate bars.

refusetolose

donstavros wrote: »

Cut the shop a break... do you not have anything better to do then complain about unimportant stuff.

The "not to be sold seperately" label is the manufacturer trying to control sales. Sure the bars are smaller but if a person has no problem paying for them just let it go.

The country is up the swanny and you're busting some shop keepers chops for splitting a multi-pack of chocolate bars.

i have a problem paying for it if i know i should get a bigger bar

Skuxx

My local shop does this to and I remember looking into it a few years ago just out of interest and what the others have said is true, it's not illegal! The not to be sold separately is only a manufacturers recommendation! Shops can probly buy the stuff in cheaper cause multipack stuff is always cheaper and if that helps save a few extra jobs I've no problem with it!

kirving

Isn't it to do with paying less tax because the product was bought at a lower price per bar, and sold on at a higher price per bar?

Also, I think that when a shop sells a bundle pack of say a deli roll and a can of coke, they will scan the roll and give the coke for "free" (when in reality they've jacked up the price of the entire bundle), the bundle will be subject to a 13.5% tax rate, instead of the coke actually being subject to 21%. Is that correct?

I think they should be reported. If everyone else is paying tax, then so should the shop keeper, hard times or not. If they can't run a business lawfully, then they shouldn't run it at all.

NewHillel

refusetolose wrote: »

i have a problem paying for it if i know i should get a bigger bar

Then don't pay for it, easy.

Oh_Noes

It annoys me because they're making a saving and they're not passing it on. That stuff about saving jobs is rubbish. The shopkeeper is pulling a fast one on the manufacturer. Surely the manufacturer has employees too?

Bottom line, it's dishonest. Even if the multipack bars aren't smaller. I know a shop that does this with a lot of stuff and I just stopped going there.

Mountjoy Mugger

donstavros wrote: »

The country is up the swanny and you're busting some shop keepers chops for splitting a multi-pack of chocolate bars.

Long before the country was up the Swannee, shops were pulling this stunt. Nothing new.

bryaner

donstavros wrote: »

Cut the shop a break... do you not have anything better to do then complain about unimportant stuff.

The "not to be sold seperately" label is the manufacturer trying to control sales. Sure the bars are smaller but if a person has no problem paying for them just let it go.

The country is up the swanny and you're busting some shop keepers chops for splitting a multi-pack of chocolate bars.

Cut the shop a break my arse, shop across the way from me is selling multi pack(not to be sold separately) crisps 25g for 70 cent.

The same price that the 40g shop packs should be, greedy bastard.

I'll also add this is the exact reason the country is up the swanny GREED...

Joey the lips

Firstly my thought has always been who gives brands the right to tell someone how to sell there goods.

second. the not to be sold seperatly principle is based on the shop buying a multi pack eg coke at a cheaper price then selling it cheaper as a multi pack. It increases sales for the brand and as the multi pack brings in more money to the shop.

However on sweets etc it never bothered me. It has happened in shops for years..

Where it would bother me is shops that buy multi packs of chrisps and sell the smaller packs for the same price.

However if they are selling like for like... Really i could not care. Its free enterprise.


However.... One word of advice... Its illegal to sell something that does not contain ingredients and suppliers address. Sometimes suppliers do away with this on multi packs because its on the outside label,


So if a shop breaks it down and this information is not contained then what its doing is illegal and in some cases it can be constitutied as re branding meaning the shop assumes liability for any product damage...(eg may contain nuts)

The shops insurence will not cover for this and so the shop owner can be charged for neglagence...

D1976

bryaner wrote: »

Cut the shop a break my arse, shop across the way from me is selling multi pack(not to be sold separately) crisps 25g for 70 cent.

The same price that the 40g shop packs should be, greedy bastard...

Have to agree with you, shops have been doing this for years pure greed. Saw a 2 for €5 on Brylcreem wax in the local chemist and Spar had separated the packs and stuck a white lebel over the NOT TO BE SOLD SEPARATELY sticker and were selling them for €4.99 each.

senordingdong

donstavros wrote: »

Cut the shop a break... do you not have anything better to do then complain about unimportant stuff.

The "not to be sold seperately" label is the manufacturer trying to control sales. Sure the bars are smaller but if a person has no problem paying for them just let it go.

The country is up the swanny and you're busting some shop keepers chops for splitting a multi-pack of chocolate bars.

If the shopkeeper is making a saving, and not passing the saving on to the customer, is it still unimportant?

foggy_lad

bryaner wrote: »

Cut the shop a break my arse, shop across the way from me is selling multi pack(not to be sold separately) crisps 25g for 70 cent.

The same price that the 40g shop packs should be, greedy bastard.

I'll also add this is the exact reason the country is up the swanny GREED...

D1976 wrote: »

Have to agree with you, shops have been doing this for years pure greed. Saw a 2 for €5 on Brylcreem wax in the local chemist and Spar had separated the packs and stuck a white lebel over the NOT TO BE SOLD SEPARATELY sticker and were selling them for €4.99 each.

In all the cases people only need to send off an email to the manufacturers and inform them of the practice and where it is taking place and they will get a visit from the wholesalers who will have been contacted by the manufacturers.

I let Jacobs know before when some biscuits in a local shop which were advertised as 100% free were being sold at double the normal price, two days later they were labeled properly.

The manufacturer or wholesaler cant force the shopkeekers to comply but they can refuse to supply them!

bungler

Manufacturers also put a RRP on everything. Does this mean that we all spend our days complaining to them that they say €1 but a shop is selling them for €1.20?

Whats that saying " let the buyer beware"

If you dont like it dont buy it

longhalloween

You do know that It doesn't cost the shops more to buy single packs of crisps instead of multipacks?? They are charged exactly the same price regardless of the packaging.

Market research shows how much people are willing to pay for certain items and thats why tayto, cans of coke and kit-kats are sold at the price they are, even tho its much cheaper for the consumer to buy them in multipacks.

TBF to the shop, chances are a multipack bag split or one can in a pack burst so instead of chucking the lot, they just put them on the shelves and sold them individually. Its not ripping off the customer, its just common sense.

I dont know where people get the notion that all shopkeepers are greedy b*stards who want to squeeze every cent outta you. Theyre just trying to pay their bills and the staff wages, same as everyone else.

keithclancy

AFAIK the only thing you can't break up and sell seperately is Cigarettes.

Joey the lips

keithclancy wrote: »

AFAIK the only thing you can't break up and sell seperately is Cigarettes.

Its so illegal i cannot believe shops use to take the chance doing this...

bryaner

longhalloween wrote: »

You do know that It doesn't cost the shops more to buy single packs of crisps instead of multipacks?? They are charged exactly the same price regardless of the packaging.

Market research shows how much people are willing to pay for certain items and thats why tayto, cans of coke and kit-kats are sold at the price they are, even tho its much cheaper for the consumer to buy them in multipacks.

TBF to the shop, chances are a multipack bag split or one can in a pack burst so instead of chucking the lot, they just put them on the shelves and sold them individually. Its not ripping off the customer, its just common sense.

I dont know where people get the notion that all shopkeepers are greedy b*stards who want to squeeze every cent outta you. Theyre just trying to pay their bills and the staff wages, same as everyone else.

Jaysus he must have bust open a few thousand multi packs cause the fcuker is at it a long time..

kirving

I'm sure these guys wouldn't mind hearing about any dodgy shops...

http://www.revenue.ie/en/contact/investigations-prosecutions-division.html

busman

Joey the lips wrote: »

However.... One word of advice... Its illegal to sell something that does not contain ingredients and suppliers address. Sometimes suppliers do away with this on multi packs because its on the outside label,


So if a shop breaks it down and this information is not contained then what its doing is illegal and in some cases it can be constitutied as re branding meaning the shop assumes liability for any product damage...(eg may contain nuts)

The shops insurence will not cover for this and so the shop owner can be charged for neglagence...

That was what I was thinking as well.
The label/packaging probably does not contain all the information that is require by law and/or regulations.
If the packaging has a number to contact the manufacture why not give them a call and ask what is missing from these labels? I'm sure they would be very interested and there might be a voucher or two in it for you

whippet

busman wrote: »

That was what I was thinking as well.
The label/packaging probably does not contain all the information that is require by law and/or regulations.
If the packaging has a number to contact the manufacture why not give them a call and ask what is missing from these labels? I'm sure they would be very interested and there might be a voucher or two in it for you

and what would the manufacture do? More than likely the retailler bought the items from Musgraves or the like .... really the crap that people worry about !!!! :rolleyes:

testicle

Joey the lips wrote: »

Firstly my thought has always been who gives brands the right to tell someone how to sell there goods.

The brands do. The cost on multi-packs is less than the equivalent single-products.

Zab

My local sells multi-pack singles but they sell them for cheaper than the standard ones.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Isn't it to do with paying less tax because the product was bought at a lower price per bar, and sold on at a higher price per bar?

Also, I think that when a shop sells a bundle pack of say a deli roll and a can of coke, they will scan the roll and give the coke for "free" (when in reality they've jacked up the price of the entire bundle), the bundle will be subject to a 13.5% tax rate, instead of the coke actually being subject to 21%. Is that correct?

I see no tax implication when breaking apart multi-packs as the VAT is due on the sale price anyway. Your sandwich example is definitely creative accounting though.

longhalloween wrote: »

You do know that It doesn't cost the shops more to buy single packs of crisps instead of multipacks?? They are charged exactly the same price regardless of the packaging.

Market research shows how much people are willing to pay for certain items and thats why tayto, cans of coke and kit-kats are sold at the price they are, even tho its much cheaper for the consumer to buy them in multipacks.

Then why do shops break open multi-packs instead of buying boxes of singles? Why do the manufacturers mark them as not for individual sale if they're getting the same amount of money for them? You say that they're from packs that are accidentally split, but in reality most of these newsagents don't sell the multi-packs in the first place.

I only see two options

1) You're incorrect and they're cheaper wholesale than the single packs.

2) They're the same price gram for gram but the multi-pack ones are smaller. Shops sell them for the same price as a full sized single in the hope that people won't notice or care about the difference.

Actually I'd say it's a combination of both but I'm mostly leaning towards option 1.

davo10

For God's sake, how is this a consumer problem or even an issue, are you paying more than the normal price for this product regardless of what's written on it?, is it an inferior product than the one that is sold seperately?

91011

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Isn't it to do with paying less tax because the product was bought at a lower price per bar, and sold on at a higher price per bar?

.

What utter CRAP!

A shop charges vat on the SELLING price of the goods. If the bar was €1.21 and cost the shop 70c, then the vat element is 21c.

If the shop charged 1.21 and bought at 10 then the vat is still 21c.

donstavros

Well I still say if a shop wants to split multi-packs and people are willing to buy them - what's the problem?

I've seen discount stores/2 Euro shops splitting multi-packs to do special offers e.g. 5 bars/cans of coke for 2 Euro. I think it is legal and people have the choice whether to buy or go somewhere else.

Don't understand why manufacturers bother to put "Not to be sold seperately" on the products. whats it to them?

Exclamation Marc

I'd only be annoyed if it was taken from something it was supposed to come free with.

A shop that used to trade in Stillorgan Shopping Centre was notorious for this, its gone about 10 years now, and they used to sell PC magazines at the RRP, but seperate it from and sell the "Free Demo Disc" seperately at nearly the same price. Twas a joke.

That sort of crap I would be concerned about, but not simply the retailer (especially if its a smaller shop) just trying to make a few quid of it.

donstavros wrote: »

Don't understand why manufacturers bother to put "Not to be sold seperately" on the products. whats it to them?

Manufacturers put the "not to be sold seperately" on multipacks because multipacks are cheaper to buy then crates of singles, so the retailer "should" have to pay more and then the manufacturer makes more money off effectively the same product.

busman

whippet wrote: »

and what would the manufacture do? More than likely the retailler bought the items from Musgraves or the like .... really the crap that people worry about !!!! :rolleyes:

I work in Quality and it's my job to worry about this sort of work so people like you don't have to

I think that the manufacture would be very interested, it is their product and they have the ultimate responsibility for it.
I'm also sure that they could trace the product back to the wholesaler by lot number.

The problem is that somebody is doing something that they shouldn't!!
It's the "A sure whats the harm with that" or "I don't see a problem with that" attitude that has got the country into the mess we are in now

Padraig Mor

davo10 wrote: »

For God's sake, how is this a consumer problem or even an issue, are you paying more than the normal price for this product regardless of what's written on it?, is it an inferior product than the one that is sold seperately?

Well yes......the consumer is paying more than they should becaus the retailer has fattened up his profit using the consumer's discount.

kirving

91011 wrote: »

What utter CRAP!

A shop charges vat on the SELLING price of the goods. If the bar was 1.21 and cost the shop 70c, then the vat element is 21c.

If the shop charged 1.21 and bought at 10 then the vat is still 21c.

Ok, no need to go nuts. Notice how I asked it as a question, as opposed to making an outright statement? I did that because I didn't know.

davo10

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Well yes......the consumer is paying more than they should becaus the retailer has fattened up his profit using the consumer's discount.

What utter crap, shops are businesses, businesses are in the business of making profits, some items they make profits on, some they do not if they cannot sell by sell by date. Do you believe all business owners think when they get a discount on bulk buying, "i must pass on all that discount to the consumer and not make any extra profit"?, No is the answer.. Businesses are not philanthrophic, they cannot afford to be, they will always have items on which they will lose money eg. fresh fruit produce.

Again and this is the crux of the argument, the consumer was not charged any more than the normal price for the item regardless of what it says on the packaging.

I think you should also consider that many suppliers and manufacturers used to have a "recommended retail price" on their items and did not allow the vendor to sell the item below this price, did you think that was fair?, in this case the vendor is buying from the supplier at a discount and selling it at a price which does not exceed the norm, sounds like good business to me.

bryaner

davo10 wrote: »

What utter crap, shops are businesses, businesses are in the business of making profits, some items they make profits on, some they do not if they cannot sell by sell by date. Do you believe all business owners think when they get a discount on bulk buying, "i must pass on all that discount to the consumer and not make any extra profit"?, No is the answer.. Businesses are not philanthrophic, they cannot afford to be, they will always have items on which they will lose money eg. fresh fruit produce.

Again and this is the crux of the argument, the consumer was not charged any more than the normal price for the item regardless of what it says on the packaging.

I think you should also consider that many suppliers and manufacturers used to have a "recommended retail price" on their items and did not allow the vendor to sell the item below this price, did you think that was fair?, in this case the vendor is buying from the supplier at a discount and selling it at a price which does not exceed the norm, sounds like good business to me.

Wrong the customers in the shop across from me are being charged for 40g packs of crisps while only getting 25g..

Typical greedy shopkeepers not happy making profit on 40g packs feck em.

Exclamation Marc

bryaner wrote: »

Wrong the customers in the shop across from me are being charged for 40g packs of crisps while only getting 25g..

Typical greedy shopkeepers not happy making profit on 40g packs feck em.

Nobody is forcing the customer to pay for the 25g packet of crisps at the 40g price, the shopkeeper can charge whatever he likes.

bryaner

FireballPitcher wrote: »

Nobody is forcing the customer to pay for the 25g packet of crisps at the 40g price, the shopkeeper can charge whatever he likes.

Their not anymore over his greedy stunt I'll give it 6 months till the boards are up..

Bogger77

bryaner wrote: »

Wrong the customers in the shop across from me are being charged for 40g packs of crisps while only getting 25g..

Typical greedy shopkeepers not happy making profit on 40g packs feck em.

Wrong, the customers in the shop across the road are paying for 25g packets, you think they're paying too much. They're willing to pay, it seems.

bryaner

Bogger77 wrote: »

Wrong, the customers in the shop across the road are paying for 25g packets, you think they're paying too much. They're willing to pay, it seems.

See above..

Exclamation Marc

bryaner wrote: »

Their not anymore over his greedy stunt I'll give it 6 months till the boards are up..

Maybe they will be.

But the shopkeeper has done nothing wrong. It's called competition, if people pay for a smaller bag at a higher price, he'll continue charging it. I don't see the problem here, he's trying to make money and if customers aren't happy with it they have feet which they can use to spend their money elsewhere.

It's like pulling the whole "OH I PAY €0.95 FOR A 500ML BOTTLE OF COKE IN DUNNES, AND YOU SELL IT FOR €1.45!!!! WHAT A RIP OFF" argument.

Price differences, competition wars, people trying to make money, get used to it.

bryaner

FireballPitcher wrote: »

Maybe they will be.

But the shopkeeper has done nothing wrong. It's called competition, if people pay for a smaller bag at a higher price, he'll continue charging it. I don't see the problem here, he's trying to make money and if customers aren't happy with it they have feet which they can use to spend their money elsewhere.

It's like pulling the whole "OH I PAY €0.95 FOR A 500ML BOTTLE OF COKE IN DUNNES, AND YOU SELL IT FOR €1.45!!!! WHAT A RIP OFF" argument.

Price differences, competition wars, people trying to make money, get used to it.

Na he will be closed I'll enjoy seeing the boards up..

davo10

bryaner wrote: »

Wrong the customers in the shop across from me are being charged for 40g packs of crisps while only getting 25g..

Typical greedy shopkeepers not happy making profit on 40g packs feck em.

You see, this is a stupid post. If the vendor advertises the product as 45g and there is only 25g in the bag, then that is false advertising and an offence. If the purchaser pays X for Y as advertised then that is the purchaser's fault if it is too expensive.

Bryaner was the product branded 40g and only contains 25g?, post your evidence.

Zab

FireballPitcher wrote: »

Maybe they will be.

But the shopkeeper has done nothing wrong. It's called competition, if people pay for a smaller bag at a higher price, he'll continue charging it. I don't see the problem here, he's trying to make money and if customers aren't happy with it they have feet which they can use to spend their money elsewhere.

It's like pulling the whole "OH I PAY €0.95 FOR A 500ML BOTTLE OF COKE IN DUNNES, AND YOU SELL IT FOR €1.45!!!! WHAT A RIP OFF" argument.

Price differences, competition wars, people trying to make money, get used to it.

I agree in principle but not in reality. The problem is that people will assume that it's a certain size of pack/bar/can as that's what it's always been and still is everywhere else. When they take a smaller pack out of a multi-pack and sell it for the same price as the full size they're pulling a fast one. I agree that it's buyer beware in a legal sense, but that doesn't make it right or something that should be defended.

I have absolutely no problem if the multi-pack items are the same size or are priced accordingly. That's between the shop and the manufacturer.

Exclamation Marc

Zab wrote: »

I agree in principle but not in reality. The problem is that people will assume that it's a certain size of pack/bar/can as that's what it's always been and still is everywhere else. When they take a smaller pack out of a multi-pack and sell it for the same price as the full size they're pulling a fast one. I agree that it's buyer beware in a legal sense, but that doesn't make it right or something that should be defended.

I have absolutely no problem if the multi-pack items are the same size or are priced accordingly.

I completely agree with you. Legally its not wrong, morally its pretty low.

I mean if he's intending to dupe people with smaller packets then they're definitely pulling a fast one, but as most people will realise after the first purchase and therefore not be a return customer it will hit them in the end.

I'm not defending the practice or condoning it, I always believe these shops get the eventual come-around, but its not illegal or worth reporting to authorities which some people seem to be suggesting. But the shop is entitled to charge whatever price they like (once its not false advertising), there's no legal duty to not sell multipack products as singles.

Zab wrote: »

That's between the shop and the manufacturer.

Well usually the manufacturer will have little knowledge or interest in these sort of shops as the shops orders come from wholesalers rather than manufacturers.

davo10

The issue seems to be that if goods marked "not to be ....." are sold seperately and are in fact smaller than the norm yet sold at the same price, then that is deceitfull, but if they are the same size then what's the problem?.

Incidently, I would have thought that manufacturers do these promotions when they have an oversupply of stock and for brand recognition so they are also getting something out of it. The ones I most commonly see are Coke and crisps, are these bottles and packets smaller than ususal?, perhaps someone in the retail sector who reads this could inform us.

pleasant Co.

Just to clear up some confusion, multipacks of tayto's/walkers do in fact contain smaller portions per individual packet of crisps compared with their regular single pack counterpart. Usually it's 25g Vs 45g (can vary with brand), and this is marked on the packet as such.

Padraig Mor

davo10 wrote: »

What utter crap, shops are businesses, businesses are in the business of making profits, some items they make profits on, some they do not if they cannot sell by sell by date. Do you believe all business owners think when they get a discount on bulk buying, "i must pass on all that discount to the consumer and not make any extra profit"?, No is the answer.. Businesses are not philanthrophic, they cannot afford to be, they will always have items on which they will lose money eg. fresh fruit produce.

Again and this is the crux of the argument, the consumer was not charged any more than the normal price for the item regardless of what it says on the packaging.

I think you should also consider that many suppliers and manufacturers used to have a "recommended retail price" on their items and did not allow the vendor to sell the item below this price, did you think that was fair?, in this case the vendor is buying from the supplier at a discount and selling it at a price which does not exceed the norm, sounds like good business to me.

Try civility sometime mate!

I still don't get what your problem is - it's easy to understand really. This is not about business to business bulk buying - this is about promotional offers from manufacturers who supply specific items bulk packed for a consumer discount and make this clear on the packaging. Manufacturers specifically bulk pack items for sale to the consumer at a price lower than buying them individually - i.e. a saving for the consumer. The shop then separates them and sells them at full price, effectively stealing the customer's discount for themselves. Let's do an example (figures imaginary, of course):

Shop buys individual cans of Coke from Mr. Coca Cola at €0.80 each. Shopkeeper applies 25% markup and sells at €1.

Shop buys 6 can multipack ("buy 4 get 2 free") for €3.20 (€0.60/can) with understanding from Mr. Coca Cola that this will be sold with normal 25% markup at RRP of €4, i.e. the consumer saves €2. Note that the shop still makes the same markup!

However, shop instead splits the pack and sells the cans for €1 each, a 67% markup. Thirsty consumer buys 6 cans and pays €6.

Gain to dodgy shopkeeper: €2. Loss to consumer: €2.


Now is this illegal? No. Is it acting the maggot and taking advantage of the consumer? Yes. Of course, this is aside from any legal aspects to details on item etc.....

bryaner

davo10 wrote: »

You see, this is a stupid post. If the vendor advertises the product as 45g and there is only 25g in the bag, then that is false advertising and an offence. If the purchaser pays X for Y as advertised then that is the purchaser's fault if it is too expensive.

Bryaner was the product branded 40g and only contains 25g?, post your evidence.

He is selling 25g packs at the 40g price, look I certainly have no problem with making profit but this splitting multipacks and selling them at the 40g standard price is pure greed.

As I stated before people have sussed this shopkeeper out and he will pay the ultimate price in the end..

donstavros

Well I don't have a problem with splitting the multi-packs and I would never wish any business to fail.

tut tut bryaner: "Na he will be closed I'll enjoy seeing the boards up.. "

jor el

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Gain to dodgy shopkeeper: €2. Loss to consumer: €2.

No, the consumer has lost nothing, as the consumer can still buy a 6 pack for the price of 4, if willing to buy it. If the consumer is only looking for 1 can though, then they get no discount. The fact that the retailer bought them at a discounted wholesale price is irrelevant. This does not cost the consumer anything, the only one at a loss is the supplier.

bryaner wrote: »

He is selling 25g packs at the 40g price

This is the only time I'd have a problem with a retailer breaking up multi-packs, if they're selling a smaller quantity at the same price as the larger one. If they have the two products on display at the same, then obviously you would choose the larger one, but if there is only one, then this is just a case of a shop charging over the odds for a particular item.

If you go from one shop to another, you can see Lucozade 330ml (to take just one example) selling for anything from €1.10 to €1.80. This is for the exact same product that cost the retailer the exact same to buy. Some retailers will always charge more to the consumer than others. So one shop charging 80c for a 25g bag of crisps, when another charges 80c for 40g, is nothing more than one retailer price gouging. The same retailer could easily charge €1.20 for 40g bag if they wanted to, and make the same profits.

hightower1

jor el wrote: »

This does not cost the consumer anything, the only one at a loss is the supplier..

It puts the product / supplier at risk. Also the shop keeper could choose if he so wished to pass the saving on to the customer but instead pockets it. So to the consumer its potential loss seeing as they hav eno controll over if the shopkeep puts out multipack units sepratly or not, they are buying the same product but not making a saving which is being made by the shop keep.

bryaner

donstavros wrote: »

Well I don't have a problem with splitting the multi-packs and I would never wish any business to fail.

tut tut bryaner: "Na he will be closed I'll enjoy seeing the boards up.. "

Tut tut me hole, he would be fine only he got a rep for his tactics now the people walk 100 meters more.

All his own doing..