Theft, pricing and robots party to a contract

Bepolite

Never ceasing to find amusement in the mundane I've been poking at this thread with a stick. I don't think the scenario I outline below contraviens the charter but apoligies in advance if it does.

To save reading the thread I'll outline a the scenario.

Vesco is a supermarket chain with self service checkouts, a 'price promise' and occasionally due to the number of lines it carries it might mis-describe a weight or have an incorrect price.

GCDLawstudent is a customer, who is aware of this 'frequent' incompetence on the part of Vesco and uses the self-service check outs so that he might take his time and ensure the prices are accurate. Where a price is incorrect GCD simply places the item in his bag and scans another item of the correct price.

Vesco's 'price promise' states that if an item is mispriced you will get the item at the price on the shelf. GCD believes he is simply saving Vesco and himself time.

Issues arising:

The prices on the shelf are invitations to treat, is the till making an offer?
Is Vesco's 'price promise' capable of unilateral acceptance
Is GCD's act theft?
Should I find something better to do with my time?

Tom Young

Looks like a homework troll - ...

hullaballoo

Bepolite wrote: »

The prices on the shelf are invitations to treat, is the till making an offer?

The customer makes the offer, the till accepts.

Is Vesco's 'price promise' capable of unilateral acceptance

No. Carbolic smoke balls don't cure colds.

Is GCD's act theft?

I didn't understand that part of your post so yes, yes it is.

Should I find something better to do with my time?

Create a few more boards.ie accounts? :pac:

johnnyskeleton

Great thread title by the way. There's some discussion and case law in Charleton on the criminal aspect - if a person with authority to bind the company undercharges it is not theft as they have the authority to make the offer at a lower price and arguably it couldn't be the law that a party to a contract is being dishonest if they accept an offer that is less than the invitation to treat price.

Grolschevik

Yeah, I was just about to propose that there be an award for 'Thread Title Most Likely to Sound Like a Phillip K Dick Story'.

Cody Pomeray

The scanning of a product's barcode, and the per-item broadcast of the price on the till-monitor is not an acceptance by the robot. Acceptance only arises where the Total is presented to the prospective purchaser, i.e. where the users of the self-service till select Finish & Pay, and the robot opens its receptacle to receive a payment.

After all, it happens that goods are sometimes only presented at a manned till in order that those goods may be scanned to ascertain the prices, after which a customer can decide whether or not he can afford to purchase.

To paraphrase one of the judges in Boots Cash Chemists, and to extend the logic of that decision, it would be a ridiculous situation if a customer changed his mind after the scanning of an item and the teller said "no, the item has passed to you, you must pay us; it cannot be put back".

Furthermore, when a customer uses the self-service till in Vesco, it is commonplace that special offer '3 for 2' items will not be broadcast on the till screen right away, the true price will not become known until the various barcodes have been "totaled" and the appropriate adjustments have been made to the individual prices.

When I am scanning 3 for 2 items at the self-service checkout, the till screen initially indicates that no such 3 for 2 offer exists, and indicates that it might charge the full price on each. This is a ruse!

The robot is thinking things that the mortal has not fully conceived, and the full extent of his machinations shall only be revealed when the long and tortuous path to an acceptance has been reached.

In conclusion, the GCDLawstudent should wait until the contract is valid before informing a human person and making off with his free loot.

looksee

I think you will find that 'Vesco' no longer make that particular offer. However I accept that this entire argument is hypothetical and if they did etc.