John Lewis charged me more than ticket price and seem to defend that

[DiamondEcho]

I'm confused by what I was charged on a recent purchase at John Lewis [in person at Oxford Street]. The product has a bar-coded price lable on it that also correctly shows the product name and a price of £3.49. However the item was charged at £5.49. I didn't check until I got home, my mistake. I looked online and there it is priced at £5.49.

I appreciate it is a minor sum, but thought I'd bring this to their attention. I am surprised by their reply that includes:

'I have checked the price of the [xyx] and can confirm that the correct price is £5.49. The formal John Lewis policy on this is very clear. We do not normally amend the price paid to reflect any disparity between this and any marked price. The price advertised online and agreed at checkout is the correct price for that item at that time. We have this policy as the marketplace is highly competitive and prices need to vary at a moments notice, sometimes for only a few hours. As a result, we cannot agree to match any prices marked on items.'

I find this very surprising, even more-so as they're a retailer I trust pretty deeply. Is this a legitimate position that they do not have to honour the price marked on a purchase? If so why put price lables on products if they are apparently changing so frequently? FWIW I do not believe the price was marked on the shelf or in it's proximity.

My question isn't about the sum involved, it is about the/any legal significance of a marked price in any shop.

[Dod101]

Do they appreciate that you bought it in store? I was always under the impression that if a price is attached to an item in store or otherwise, that was in effect their offer to sell it to you at that price and if you accept that by tendering the payment then even if it was wrong they had to honour it.

I would certainly go back to them if you still have the label with the price if £3.49 on it.

Dod

[kempiejon]

I can't quite remember the phrase used something to do with invitations and offers I think. The shop have labelled their produce incorrectly but you have paid the correct price. They have no legal duty to refund you the money to the incorrectly labelled price. If a shop makes a genuine mistake with the price label but the till and online show the correct price and you paid it you can't claim the difference.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consu ... ong-price/

[dionaeamuscipula]

Do they appreciate that you bought it in store? I was always under the impression that if a price is attached to an item in store or otherwise, that was in effect their offer to sell it to you at that price and if you accept that by tendering the payment then even if it was wrong they had to honour it.

I would certainly go back to them if you still have the label with the price if £3.49 on it.

Dod

No. It is (usually) an invitation to treat. However I have usually found that if there is a difference between the shelf/label price and the till price, and it is noticed at the till, that the assistant will agree to sell at the shelf/label price. I'm slightly surprised that JL are sticking by their guns here.

The OP should be able to return the item for full credit within 35 days of purchase if unused.

I say usually because if eg there was a sign on site saying "super bargain, reduced from £5.49 to £3.49!!!" then that would swing it away from an invitation to an offer.

DM

[chas49]

I say usually because if eg there was a sign on site saying "super bargain, reduced from £5.49 to £3.49!!!" then that would swing it away from an invitation to an offer.

I don't see how. The legal (contract law) position is that displaying an item for sale is regarded as an invitation to treat. The customer taking it to the till, or saying "Can I have one of those?" is the "offer", and the store staff processsing it is the "acceptance".

However, it is potentially a criminal offence (false description as to price) to mark an item at a lower price than the actual sale price. A genuine mistake would probably be accepted as such by Trading Standards. However, the fact that it may be an offence does not give yo the "right" to buy at the lower price.

Still rather a surprising response from JL though

[richlist]

Like most retailers JL are in deep trouble and every penny counts towards profit or more likely less of a loss.
I feel sorry for them, not you.
I do hope they are still on the high street this time next year.

[dionaeamuscipula]

I don't see how. The legal (contract law) position is that displaying an item for sale is regarded as an invitation to treat. The customer taking it to the till, or saying "Can I have one of those?" is the "offer", and the store staff processsing it is the "acceptance".

Normally yes, but an advertisement can, if the terms are sufficiently clear, become an offer. But IANAL and its not really relevant to the OP.



DM

[swill453]

In this case the "offer" was by the OP, to purchase at £3.49 as marked.

JL had no business "accepting" this and charging £5.49. The contract is void. JL should sort it out at no cost or inconvenience to the OP.

Obviously it would be cheaper for them to refund £2.

Scott.

[GoSeigen]

My question isn't about the sum involved, it is about the/any legal significance of a marked price in any shop.

As others have said the marked price is not the contract price, it is merely an invitation to form a contract at the price. The actual contract occurs when you offer them a sum and they accept.

The best you could argue IMO is that when you bought it you thought the price was £3.49 and absent mindedly paid £5-49 -- whereas if you had known the real price you would never have bought the item. The fact that you were not aware of the true price is partly JL's responsibility because they mis-labeled the item.

They should fix the problem by refunding and taking back the item.


GS

[Lanark]

I have a vague memory that this was covered by The Sale of Goods Act 1979, but I see that has now been replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Perhaps in an age of internet shopping with constantly changing prices they have watered down the parts about offer price?

If they no longer legally have to, I can see shops getting lazy about updating price tickets.

[Dod101]

I see. I did not know that the marked price was not the seller's offer. However I must say that I have never had any problems with getting a refund in such a situation. I thought that they were obliged to sell at the marked price even if it was wrong. Occasionally one hears about people especially on the internet paying an obviously wrong price and the seller unable to do anything about it.

Dod

[swill453]

I thought that they were obliged to sell at the marked price even if it was wrong.

No I don't think that's ever been the case.

Occasionally one hears about people especially on the internet paying an obviously wrong price and the seller unable to do anything about it.

No, I recall lots of cases where Internet sellers have cancelled orders when people have tried to buy at obviously wrong prices.

Maybe a few have slipped through (to the point of shipping) before retailers notice it. In that case I doubt there's anything they can do about it.

Scott.

[richfool]

As others have said the marked price is not the contract price, it is merely an invitation to form a contract at the price. The actual contract occurs when you offer them a sum and they accept.

The best you could argue IMO is that when you bought it you thought the price was £3.49 and absent mindedly paid £5-49 -- whereas if you had known the real price you would never have bought the item. The fact that you were not aware of the true price is partly JL's responsibility because they mis-labeled the item.

They should fix the problem by refunding and taking back the item.

In a nutshell.

Yes, as said, it's an "invitation to treat", and they don't have to honour that price, but as they had mis-priced it, often shops will honour the mis-pricing (to keep customers happy). I had exactly that situation a few years back, in a different store. They had mis-priced the item (under-priced it) and the Manager "huffed and puffed" about honouring the lower marked price. He eventually did so, but later when I came back to try and buy a couple more, they dug their heels in, reiterating the invitation to treat implications and (correctly) asserting that I now knew the true price, therefore they would not sell any more at that lower price. (whereby I gracefully conceded).

The question now becomes, - is it worth the hassle of going all the way back and arguing your point and/or requesting a refund.

[DiamondEcho]

Do they appreciate that you bought it in store? I was always under the impression that if a price is attached to an item in store or otherwise, that was in effect their offer to sell it to you at that price and if you accept that by tendering the payment then even if it was wrong they had to honour it. I would certainly go back to them if you still have the label with the price if £3.49 on it.

That's not entirely clear to me, whether they registered quite how I bought it, although I did state that I bought it in-store (quoting the location/receipt number/time-stamp etc).
Your understanding is the same as mine, hence the confusion. Only greater now the 'customers champion' rebuffed me quite summarily (it feels).

I can't quite remember the phrase used something to do with invitations and offers I think. The shop have labelled their produce incorrectly but you have paid the correct price. They have no legal duty to refund you the money to the incorrectly labelled price. If a shop makes a genuine mistake with the price label but the till and online show the correct price and you paid it you can't claim the difference.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consu ... ong-price/

Perhaps the phrase you have in mind relates to the Sale of Goods act, and a marked price being 'an invitation to treat', which in my non-legal mind forms one side of a contract made binding by my agreement to it, and their acceptance of payment. So then what if I pay, and later find I've been charged a higher price? I suppose that's the question.
My gut feeling is I bought an item of older stock, at an older lower price, and perhaps now it's more expensive. Hence given what they say, they're suggesting they can validly charge the new/higher price on the older/lower priced stock even when they don't replace the later invalid price lables. But that 'just sounds wrong', and very wrong from a straight player like John Lewis. It would mean that no shopper could rely on any price lable as being valid. Surely not.

[Dod101]

I agree with DE on this but it seems there are legal minds who know better. I am not in a position to argue but for instance I shop quite a lot in our local Co op and have on more than one occasion have challenged their charge at the till because it has been higher than the price displayed. They have always accepted the displayed price with no argument, one time I recall because their range of special offers was due to start the next day but some minion had openly displayed the special offer price when I was in. Obviously the till register had not been changed to the lower price. They refunded me with no argument. That is why I have always understood that the displayed price was in practice at least the one the seller would stand by if challenged. I am very surprised that John Lewis would not.

Dod

[DiamondEcho]

The question now becomes, - is it worth the hassle of going all the way back and arguing your point and/or requesting a refund.

It's just a case of hitting 'reply' and typing say 20 words. As said, it's not the current sum more trying to understand the position, and the significance of a marked price, in any shop. Next time it might concern £100.

[Mike4]

The question now becomes, - is it worth the hassle of going all the way back and arguing your point and/or requesting a refund.

It's just a case of hitting 'reply' and typing say 20 words. As said, it's not the current sum more trying to understand the position, and the significance of a marked price, in any shop. Next time it might concern £100.

Well it was clear to me from the start that you were concerned about the principle involved not the two quid.

I suspect you are bang on the money about you having bought an item of old stock. This issue of new stock being sold at a higher (or lower) price is very relevant in a different field. Fuel. The the price of petrol is falling the retailer with £20k of petrol in his tanks that he bought for the old higher price is in an awful bind when his competitor two miles away is selling his latest lower cost delivery for 5p a litre less.

With fuel prices tumbling right now I'm seeing wide variations around here as old stock gets cleared, or not!