Misleading price for an item

joe316

Went into a large hardware store looking at a bbq, saw one I was interested in had a price sign of 299. Went to look at the box to grab it and noticed it was 1 of 2 boxes and low and behold there was a separate price of another 299 for box 2.

Tried to see what was in box 1 and what was in box 2 but couldn't decipher what was the difference or if you could actually buy box 1 and it being a working BBQ.

To me this is really confusing and quite misleading. Spoke to the manager and agreed that it was confusing, offered 10% off. Don't think that this was enough and left, rang their customer service and got a PFO.

Do I have a case against the store under false advertising?

brightspark

You have no case against the store.

Google "invitation to treat".

callaway92

joe316 wrote: »

Went into a large hardware store looking at a bbq, saw one I was interested in had a price sign of 299. Went to look at the box to grab it and noticed it was 1 of 2 boxes and low and behold there was a separate price of another 299 for box 2.

Tried to see what was in box 1 and what was in box 2 but couldn't decipher what was the difference or if you could actually buy box 1 and it being a working BBQ.

To me this is really confusing and quite misleading. Spoke to the manager and agreed that it was confusing, offered 10% off. Don't think that this was enough and left, rang their customer service and got a PFO.

Do I have a case against the store under false advertising?

Christ . . .

Seriously...even if you did (you certainly don't), why would you bother? Is your life actually that bland???

joe316

callaway92 wrote: »

Christ . . .

Seriously...even if you did (you certainly don't), why would you bother? Is your life actually that bland???

Thanks for the comment, I'm sure yours is equally as bland feeling the need to comment

Xoxo

Staplor

Are you sure it wasn't box 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. 600 for a BBQ, would want to have been a good brand.

rubadub

joe316 wrote: »

To me this is really confusing

jaysus, I know the feeling!

what is the shop? why the secrecy? you have said nothing derogatory about them, or made any wild claims. All I know is this shop was offering 10% off if you chance asking -well worth knowing, possibly worth of "bargain alerts". You said a big hardware shop, I would expect them to have a website. It could become extremely clear if you just gave more info/links. And people may know if you do need both.

Is this yet another thread where people will just have to waiting to see eventual story unfold and then sit back and go "FFS nothing to see here, non-issue, should have known".

TerrorFirmer

A lot of larger BBQ's come in two boxes from the factory. A shop certainly wouldn't charge for half a BBQ, that would make no sense whatsoever.

Sounds like the shop just got mixed up if what you've posted is accurate. No retail operation would sell a single item in two parts with a seperate price for each.

299 sounds about right for some of the half decent 2/3 burner gas BBQ's you'd get in Woodies/B&Q etc.

The only other possibility is that they were not in fact charging for two boxes, but the wrong price was on the BBQ you were looking to buy and you incorrectly misinterpreted that you were being charged for box 1 and 2 when told the real price.

Likes of some of the gas 2 or 3 burner Weber BBQ's would be in the 600 range.

Virtanen

callaway92 wrote: »

Christ . . .

Seriously...even if you did (you certainly don't), why would you bother? Is your life actually that bland???

Claim Culture, any excuse to try and make a quick buck without raising a finger

Senna

This sounds very strange, so the item needs two boxes to be complete, but each box has a separate price and one box on its own is useless??
I think it was meant to be 600 and the mistake was putting 299 on it

sdanseo

brightspark wrote: »

You have no case against the store.

Google "invitation to treat".

Google the Consumer Information Act, 1978 and Consumer Protection Act, 2007.

False or misleading advertising is an offence carrying a fine of around €3,000 last time I checked.

Not saying that's warranted in this case - sounds like a bit of a mountain being made out of a molehill - but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the poor chap. We are in the consumer issues forum after all.

Mervyn Skidmore

sdanseo wrote: »

Google the Consumer Information Act, 1978 and Consumer Protection Act, 2007.

False or misleading advertising is an offence carrying a fine of around €3,000 last time I checked.

Not saying that's warranted in this case - sounds like a bit of a mountain being made out of a molehill - but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the poor chap. We are in the consumer issues forum after all.

I presume that's where there's intentional false advertising or misleading of consumers. This just sounds like a genuine error and the shop generously offered a discount. Good customer service in my opinion.

sdanseo

Mervyn Skidmore wrote: »

I presume that's where there's intentional false advertising or misleading of consumers. This just sounds like a genuine error and the shop generously offered a discount. Good customer service in my opinion.

I agree, store sounds like it tried its best to resolve the issue for that particular customer - although I'd like to think the manager changed the display right away I do wonder if they did.

The Acts don't make any reference to intent. If you allow the misleading information to be published or displayed, that's enough to constitute the offence.

Senna

sdanseo wrote: »

Google the Consumer Information Act, 1978 and Consumer Protection Act, 2007.

False or misleading advertising is an offence carrying a fine of around €3,000 last time I checked.

Not saying that's warranted in this case - sounds like a bit of a mountain being made out of a molehill - but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the poor chap. We are in the consumer issues forum after all.

The wrong price on an item displayed in a shop is not false or misleading advertising.

jimmycrackcorm

sdanseo wrote:

False or misleading advertising is an offence carrying a fine of around €3,000 last time I checked.

Where was it advertised?

@OP, what model BBQ was it?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

sdanseo wrote: »

Google the Consumer Information Act, 1978 and Consumer Protection Act, 2007.

False or misleading advertising is an offence carrying a fine of around €3,000 last time I checked.

Not saying that's warranted in this case - sounds like a bit of a mountain being made out of a molehill - but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the poor chap. We are in the consumer issues forum after all.

Read the full act. Mispricing is not false advertising nor is confusing pricing: it is still considered an invitation to treat.

sdanseo

Selene Dry Poplar wrote: »

Read the full act. Mispricing is not false advertising nor is confusing pricing: it is still considered an invitation to treat.

Under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, you're correct. Invitation to treat is not referred to in the Consumer Information Act.

I should correct myself a bit though, because there is a reference to errors. A mistake or error (which would in essence mean without intent) is a defence but only if you took all due diligent steps to make sure the mistake wasn't allowed to happen:

it shall, subject to subsection (2) of this section, be a defence for the person charged to prove—

(a) that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake or the reliance on information supplied to him or to the act or default of another person, an accident or some other cause beyond his control; and

(b) that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any other person under his control.

Not the first time I've seen two laws contradict each other. You make a good point - which is right?

It reads as though the burden is proof is on the retailer to prove they took all steps to prevent the error as well, which I'd imagine is hard to do.

theteal

I do love a good invitation to treat back and forth, much as anyone, but I think your efforts are a bit misplaced on this one.

As mentioned earlier, there's some incorrect information going on here, there's no way they're selling half a bbq for €299 - there's no way to buy half of a bbq. That would be weird. As requested previously OP, could point out the product online? It may help clear confusion

J.pilkington

rubadub wrote: »

what is the shop? why the secrecy?

As he is hoping for a few million in compensation for the emotional distraught he doesn't want anyone beating him to the $$$s

eeguy

J.pilkington wrote: »

As he is hoping for a few million in compensation for the emotional distraught he doesn't want anyone beating him to the $$$s

I know the one. Recently bought by an Australian firm if anyone is interested in googling.

So the BBQ has 2 boxes. Each box has a unique barcode, and each barcode is assigned a price which is half of the total. It's just the system they use. There's no alternative way of pricing which is compatible with the current system.

They should have a big poster with the total price, but maybe that was lost. It's probably correct in the catalogue and any staff would have informed you rightly before you bought of the total price.
What more do you want? At this stage you're just being a pain. I'm not surprised they told you to PFO.

joe316

OP back here, appreciate the back and forth even those telling me to get a life! :angel:
To avoid confusion it was the Camden 350 from B&Q and yes it did have a price for each of the 2 boxes as part of the BBQ. At first they tried to say that Box 1 was for the middle of the BBQ and Box 2 was for the sides but there was no reference on the boxes as to what was in each and it was clear that both were required.

goldenhoarde

That BBQ is priced at 450 pounds on www.diy.com so 600 probably the Irish price.

eeguy

joe316 wrote: »

OP back here, appreciate the back and forth even those telling me to get a life! :angel:
To avoid confusion it was the Camden 350 from B&Q and yes it did have a price for each of the 2 boxes as part of the BBQ. At first they tried to say that Box 1 was for the middle of the BBQ and Box 2 was for the sides but there was no reference on the boxes as to what was in each and it was clear that both were required.

What difference does it make?

You can't buy the boxes separately. The same way you can't buy a table top and not the legs, even when they're in two different boxes.
The two boxes comprise one item.

The two barcodes are just for stock-keeping, the two prices are because the system doesn't have a 2 box = 1 item option, so they just split the price and inform the customer that the final price is the sum of both boxes on larger signage and in the catalogue.

joe316

eeguy wrote: »

What difference does it make?

You can't buy the boxes separately. The same way you can't buy a table top and not the legs, even when they're in two different boxes.
The two boxes comprise one item.

The two barcodes are just for stock-keeping, the two prices are because the system doesn't have a 2 box = 1 item option, so they just split the price and inform the customer that the final price is the sum of both boxes on larger signage and in the catalogue.

I could buy 1 box though they said I could so that point is not correct.

They had 2 signs either side of the stack of boxes, each with a price of 299 in big printed text (the typical b&q a4 sign). It was only when I went to look in more detail did I spot hand written 'box 1' and 'box 2' on each.

rubadub

You would think they would have the taped or strapped together and just have 1 barcode working.

A trick would be to buy box 1 and then come back weeks later when they are selling off the now useless box 2 which they were stuck with!

The only other advantage I can think of it that it would allow someone transport if easier if they are huge boxes, drive home with box 1, come back later to buy the other.

ohnonotgmail

sdanseo wrote: »

Under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, you're correct. Invitation to treat is not referred to in the Consumer Information Act.

I should correct myself a bit though, because there is a reference to errors. A mistake or error (which would in essence mean without intent) is a defence but only if you took all due diligent steps to make sure the mistake wasn't allowed to happen:



Not the first time I've seen two laws contradict each other. You make a good point - which is right?

It reads as though the burden is proof is on the retailer to prove they took all steps to prevent the error as well, which I'd imagine is hard to do.

Invitation to treat and misleading advertising are separate concepts. Even if the advertisement is misleading it still constitutes invitation to treat.

xabi

I hope the OP is alright after that ordeal! Let it go OP, no point stressing stuff like this.

joe316

xabi wrote: »

I hope the OP is alright after that ordeal! Let it go OP, no point stressing stuff like this.

God you're a bit of a condescending p****

But thanks for your concern! 😄

L1011

rubadub wrote: »

The only other advantage I can think of it that it would allow someone transport if easier if they are huge boxes, drive home with box 1, come back later to buy the other.

Its usually done to allow the box to be legally moved by one person from the shelf to the trolley. Many large items of flatpack come in 2 or 3 boxes for this reason.

L1011

joe316 wrote: »

God you're a bit of a condescending p****

But thanks for your concern! 😄

No need for that level of reply.

the_pen_turner

why cant they put 599.98 on one barcode and 0.01 on the other.

L1011

the_pen_turner wrote: »

why cant they put 599.98 on one barcode and 0.01 on the other.

Have you seen the stuff people will buy on BA if it scans that cheap?