Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Undercharged

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,265 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notjustsweet wrote: »
    Then you should know it's illegal to have unpriced items on sale? So while whisking away the incorrect prices may be "quick and easy" replacing them isn't....as I said.


    It is? Where does this requirement come from?


  • Options
    #63
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    It is? Where does this requirement come from?

    http://www.consumerhelp.ie/pricing-rules

    I'm sure there's an actual law but I can't remember where to find it right now so this should do. I worked in retail management for so long it's ingrained!!


  • Options
    #64
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    It is pretty clear from the OP that they knew the price of the item was €90.

    Well yes and no... the 'invitation' to purchase was only based on the price on the shelf. OP did indeed know this.
    It's the same as if I see a suit for 100 on the rack... take the suit over to the manager and ask if there's any discount available... manager says ok and punches in 90 at the till.
    Can the manager subsequently charge an extra 10. IMO the contract starts and ends at the till in one transaction.
    The final agreed contract was for 90cent.the op didn't agree to any other contract.
    And also the op didn't agree to pay piecemeal.

    OP there are no win no fee solicitors that would jump at the chance to test this out. You agreed to pay 90c.


  • Options
    #65
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,379 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    listermint wrote: »
    The OP thought they got away with it. They didn't , they need to get over it.

    And those that are fighting the good fight defending the op need to get over it too.
    People are giving him the benefit of the doubt, people need to get over it :rolleyes: (christ I fcuking despise that pathetic phrase)

    People are "defending" him against those accusing him of something he never even said.
    notjustsweet wrote: »
    "If you have to ask you can't afford it" places?
    Me too :D

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/pricing/price_display_of_goods_and_services.html
    Retail outlets
    The purpose of the EC (Requirements to Indicate Product Prices) Regulations 2002 is to enable consumer to see the price of the product before buying and to make price comparisons. The price of products on sale in shops and supermarkets may be attached to the items themselves. Alternatively they may be displayed on a label on the edge of the shelf. Generally, shelf labels are used to display prices in supermarkets since barcodes have becomes more popular. Under the EC (Requirements to Indicate Product Prices) Regulations 2002, retailers must show the correct selling price in euro including taxes. Unit prices for products sold by weight volume or measure must also be clearly displayed. More detailed information on pricing of goods and services is available here. The Regulations provide for certain exemptions from unit pricing such as items which are equal or less than 50 ml or 50 grams. The Regulations also extend to online shopping. Services are not covered by the Product Pricing Regulations.

    The Prices and Charges (Tax-Inclusive Statements) Order, 1973 requires that all prices marked on goods or prices displayed or quoted at the retail level and all charges for services displayed or quoted should be tax-inclusive (e.g. VAT) except where it is intended solely for a business customer.
    Reading that, and on other consumer sites I always thought it did have to be displayed. But notice the word "quoted", the law then talks of "stated orally".

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1973/si/9/made/en/print
    3. Where, for the purposes of or in connection with the sale by retail by a person of a commodity, the retail price of the commodity is stated orally by the person or by a servant or agent of the person or is stated on the commodity or on any container or wrapper in which the commodity is packed or on a ticket or label attached to the commodity or to such container or wrapper or in a catalogue or advertisement or in a notice or other document (other than an invoice), the price so stated shall be stated as a single amount inclusive of any charge made by the person for any tax payable in respect of the commodity.

    4. Where, for the purposes of or in connection with the rendering of a service by a person, the charge for the service is stated orally by the person or by a servant or agent of the person or is stated in any catalogue or advertisement or in a notice or other document (other than an invoice), the charge so stated shall be stated as a single amount inclusive of any charge made by the person for any tax payable in respect of the service.


  • Options
    #66
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    Well yes and no... the 'invitation' to purchase was only based on the price on the shelf. OP did indeed know this.
    It's the same as if I see a suit for 100 on the rack... take the suit over to the manager and ask if there's any discount available... manager says ok and punches in 90 at the till.
    Can the manager subsequently charge an extra 10. IMO the contract starts and ends at the till in one transaction.
    The final agreed contract was for 90cent.the op didn't agree to any other contract.
    And also the op didn't agree to pay piecemeal.

    OP there are no win no fee solicitors that would jump at the chance to test this out. You agreed to pay 90c.

    No, in your case the manager puts in 90 at the till you pay 90. If he added 10 you would have a till receipt (a sales contract) for 90 and payment for 100 they don't match and something is wrong.

    In ops case his till receipt (sales contract that he agreed to) is for €90, his payment is for €90 in 2 parts. They are both the same, he paid what he agreed.
    There's no solicitor would touch it because nothing is wrong here, he paid what he agreed and the shop has documents to prove it- and I'd bet there's CCTV too.

    As stated earlier he could attempt a chargeback saying he didn't authorise the purchase.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    rubadub wrote: »

    Reading that, and on other consumer sites I always thought it did have to be displayed. But notice the word "quoted", the law then talks of "stated orally".

    So that's why gorgeous people follow you around....its not to intimidate us it's to tell us the prices ;)


  • Options
    #68
    AvonEnniskerry
    Registered Users Posts: 354 ✭✭AvonEnniskerry


    notjustsweet wrote:
    Then you should know it's illegal to have unpriced items on sale? So while whisking away the incorrect prices may be "quick and easy" replacing them isn't....as I said.


    There's nothing stopping them from replacing them with a correct hand written one for the time being. New labels are constantly being printed out. It wouldn't be long before the print out was available. I'd rather no price displayed than falsely advertising the incorrect one.


  • Options
    #69
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    Well yes and no... the 'invitation' to purchase was only based on the price on the shelf. OP did indeed know this.
    It's the same as if I see a suit for 100 on the rack... take the suit over to the manager and ask if there's any discount available... manager says ok and punches in 90 at the till.
    Can the manager subsequently charge an extra 10. IMO the contract starts and ends at the till in one transaction.
    The final agreed contract was for 90cent.the op didn't agree to any other contract.
    And also the op didn't agree to pay piecemeal.

    OP there are no win no fee solicitors that would jump at the chance to test this out. You agreed to pay 90c.
    Is no win no fee back?


  • Options
    #70
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    notjustsweet wrote: »
    No, in your case the manager puts in 90 at the till you pay 90. If he added 10 you would have a till receipt (a sales contract) for 90 and payment for 100 they don't match and something is wrong.

    In ops case his till receipt (sales contract that he agreed to) is for €90, his payment is for €90 in 2 parts. They are both the same, he paid what he agreed.
    There's no solicitor would touch it because nothing is wrong here, he paid what he agreed and the shop has documents to prove it- and I'd bet there's CCTV too.

    As stated earlier he could attempt a chargeback saying he didn't authorise the purchase.

    where did the OP say his receipt stated €90?


  • Options
    #71
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,265 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    Well yes and no... the 'invitation' to purchase was only based on the price on the shelf. OP did indeed know this.
    It's the same as if I see a suit for 100 on the rack... take the suit over to the manager and ask if there's any discount available... manager says ok and punches in 90 at the till.
    Can the manager subsequently charge an extra 10. IMO the contract starts and ends at the till in one transaction.
    The final agreed contract was for 90cent.the op didn't agree to any other contract.
    And also the op didn't agree to pay piecemeal.

    OP there are no win no fee solicitors that would jump at the chance to test this out. You agreed to pay 90c.

    The OP is really clear on this.
    I bought a pair of headphones at the weekend and a big retailer only charged me 90c instead of 90euro.

    They expected to pay €90. they paid €90. Any mention of discounts or other made up scenarios are not relevant.

    with the scale of fees in the district court the OP would have to find a solicitor with a lot of time on their hands if they went down that route.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Suckit
    Registered Users Posts: 11,215 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    ScouseMouse wrote: »
    Or another way of looking at it is you were offered an item for 90 euro.  You accepted the offer and  then gave consent to charge your card 90 euro.    This is what has occured.

    Who says it has to be done in a single transaction?
    If it was accepted, then the OP should have to repeat handing them his card.

    As for the "who says it has to be done in a single transaction"..
    That is just a ridiculous statement. I would have no problem in the store getting their €90, but I would have a major issue in the fact that it is possible for them to reuse my card - that would have me worried. It could in theory leave things wide open for people to commit all sorts of fraud.
    If, for example I stayed in a hotel, and they changed the price of the room after i stayed there, they could argue that the new price is what i should have paid and decide to deduct the difference (€1 or €2).
    Yes, sure i would argue it once i noticed it, and they would refund me, but for all of the people that don't argue.
    In this instance, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the OP had given his consent to pay €90, and was eventually charged it which is fine.
    It is not the same as more than one transaction.


  • Options
    #73
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    where did the OP say his receipt stated €90?

    Where did he say it didn't?
    Pointless argument TBH.


  • Options
    #74
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,379 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    notjustsweet wrote: »
    Where did he say it didn't?
    Pointless argument TBH.

    he did not say it did or didn't. Yet you still went ahead and said "In ops case his till receipt (sales contract that he agreed to) is for ?90"

    Like so many others here jumping to conclusions and reading stuff into his very brief posts which is simply not there.


  • Options
    #75
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    The OP is really clear on this.



    They expected to pay €90. they paid €90. Any mention of discounts or other made up scenarios are not relevant.

    with the scale of fees in the district court the OP would have to find a solicitor with a lot of time on their hands if they went down that route.

    Ive occasionally gone in to a shop 'expecting' to pay x... but end up being charged y at the till.
    The contract is at the till.


  • Options
    #76
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    notjustsweet wrote: »
    Where did he say it didn't?
    Pointless argument TBH.

    Logic follows that if he was charged 99c then the till read 99c and his receipt says 99c.
    How could the store till say 99euro but then automatically deduct 99c from the card... it's all automatic.


  • Options
    #77
    ssmith6287
    Registered Users Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭ssmith6287


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    Logic follows that if he was charged 99c then the till read 99c and his receipt says 99c.
    How could the store till say 99euro but then automatically deduct 99c from the card... it's all automatic.

    His EFT receipt will say 99c, his store receipt will say 99€.


  • Options
    #78
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    After 3 days and 77 posts OP still hasn't put any input in here. Why bother arguing lads?


  • Options
    #79
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,265 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    Ive occasionally gone in to a shop 'expecting' to pay x... but end up being charged y at the till.
    The contract is at the till.

    he was expecting to pay X. He paid X, albeit in two card transactions not one. The contract is formed when the customer makes an offer and the retailer accepts. Paying for the goods does not form the contract. it concludes it.


  • Options
    #80
    AvonEnniskerry
    Registered Users Posts: 354 ✭✭AvonEnniskerry


    Gebgbegb wrote:
    Logic follows that if he was charged 99c then the till read 99c and his receipt says 99c. How could the store till say 99euro but then automatically deduct 99c from the card... it's all automatic.

    They reckon it's because the till read the correct amount whilst the amount was entered incorrectly into the card machine... So instead of inputting 90.00 they entered 00.90


  • Options
    #81
    dudara
    Registered Users Posts: 33,519 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    Logic follows that if he was charged 99c then the till read 99c and his receipt says 99c.
    How could the store till say 99euro but then automatically deduct 99c from the card... it's all automatic.

    In ideal situations, the EPOS transfers the total automatically from the till to the card terminal. This would eliminate such errors.

    But judging by the description here, that wasn't the case. It sounds like the salesperson manually keyed the transaction amount into the card terminal and made a blooper by forgetting to add "00" at the end.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    Logic follows that if he was charged 99c then the till read 99c and his receipt says 99c.
    How could the store till say 99euro but then automatically deduct 99c from the card... it's all automatic.

    No it isn't all automatic believe it or not. Integrated tills are extremely expensive, not that many companies use them. Massive chains like Tesco, Dunnes, supervalue, Penneys etc do of course.

    Think of all the times youre given 2 receipts where one is smaller and says bank of Ireland etc at the top. That's a manual receipt where someone entered the price on a machine behind the counter, of course mistakes can happen.
    Places like the above where both receipts are the same size and come from the same printer are automated and done from the till system internally, no mistakes are possible!

    In this case someone has entered 90 instead of 9000 giving 90c instead of 90.00. Simple but costly mistake!!
    Hope that clears it up.


  • Options
    #83
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    he was expecting to pay X. He paid X, albeit in two card transactions not one. The contract is formed when the customer makes an offer and the retailer accepts. Paying for the goods does not form the contract. it concludes it.

    Wrong.... he was expecting to pay x... 90€ going by shelf price.

    He paid y... 90c.

    Did he agree to pay piecemeal?
    No
    Had the transaction finished when he left the till?
    Yes

    Was he entering into a hire purchase arrangement?
    No

    Paying for the goods is the final stage of any purchase.
    If not then your leaving a precedent for any store owner to change their mind and try and get a few more quid out of a customer.

    Otherwise we are accepting that a contract continues indefinitely?


  • Options
    #84
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,265 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    Wrong.... he was expecting to pay x... 90€ going by shelf price.

    He paid y... 90c.

    Did he agree to pay piecemeal?
    No
    Had the transaction finished when he left the till?
    Yes

    Was he entering into a hire purchase arrangement?
    No

    Paying for the goods is the final stage of any purchase.
    If not then your leaving a precedent for any store owner to change their mind and try and get a few more quid out of a customer.

    Otherwise we are accepting that a contract continues indefinitely?

    this is just nonsense. so i'll leave it here.


  • Options
    #85
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    The card number and expiry date are printed on the merchant copy of the slip which is kept or returned to the bank.

    Happened me before that I undercharged someone and found out when cashing up. I just took the payment and dropped them a note to that effect. I never heard any more.


  • Options
    #86
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Kenna Ugly Barnyard wrote: »
    The card number and expiry date are printed on the merchant copy of the slip which is kept or returned to the bank.

    Happened me before that I undercharged someone and found out when cashing up. I just took the payment and dropped them a note to that effect. I never heard any more.

    You do know that you're not allowed to do that without the customers permission though right?


  • Options
    #87
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Kenna Ugly Barnyard wrote: »
    The card number and expiry date are printed on the merchant copy of the slip which is kept or returned to the bank.

    Whaaat? Are we talking about the days when you took a carbon copy of the card?

    I'm pretty sure that is no longer the case, it it ever was. I can't imagine a way in which the banks and credit card companies could make massive-scale fraud easier.


  • Options
    #88
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Former Former wrote: »
    Whaaat? Are we talking about the days when you took a carbon copy of the card?

    I'm pretty sure that is no longer the case, it it ever was. I can't imagine a way in which the banks and credit card companies could make massive-scale fraud easier.

    It is true. I take credit card payments in my job all the time and I've worked in retail. The merchant copy has everything you need on it except the 3 digits on the back obviously.


  • Options
    #89
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    Former Former wrote: »
    Whaaat? Are we talking about the days when you took a carbon copy of the card?

    I'm pretty sure that is no longer the case, it it ever was. I can't imagine a way in which the banks and credit card companies could make massive-scale fraud easier.

    It's been said multiple times in the thread :D

    They also have a merchant number printed on them which is a code identifying which store this particular receipt is linked to, if multiple customers complained of fraud it's very easy for the bank to find out the origin of the fraud.
    The receipts are treated like cash, kept in the till and transferred into a safe.


  • Options
    #90
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    this is just nonsense. so i'll leave it here.

    Leave what where.
    Can you provide a source for your nonsense assertion?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    pilly wrote: »
    It is true. I take credit card payments in my job all the time and I've worked in retail. The merchant copy has everything you need on it except the 3 digits on the back obviously.

    I don't think anyone is refuting the idea of being physically ' able' to do it.
    The discussion is about whether you have ' the right' to take multiple deductions from a person's account...


Advertisement