Tesco guarantee on pricing errors

[Brooklyn]

I was Tesco today and picked up an item which was marked at a reduced price. When I brought it to the till it scanned at the original (unreduced) price. I pointed out the error to the shop assistant, she went to go check the shelf and came back confirming that yes, the price was supposed to be reduced. She keyed in the reduced price and I pointed to the sign on the wall which states that if you are charged more than the shelf price Tesco "guarantees" to give you the item free. She told me this did not apply because I hadn't completed the transaction yet. I thought this was absurd and asked for a manager, who agreed to give me the item free. My questions are:

1) Is that sign legally binding (I know there is not normally an obligation to give the customer the marked price, but it does say that Tesco "guarantees" it will do so)

2) If so, can they legitimately refuse to honour the guarantee if I point out the error to them after the item is scanned at the till but before I hand over the money for it?

 

[susie1]

the guarantee only applies if you have paid for the item, which you did not, so you were not overcharged. i think it was a bit cheeky of you to complain, fair play to the manager for refunding you though which i'm sure was only a good will gesture.

 

[Brooklyn]

the guarantee only applies if you have paid for the item, which you did not, so you were not overcharged.

Can you back this up with a reference? Every dictionary I have to hand says that "charge" means to ask a price or fee, which happened at the point my item was scanned at the till. It's not clear to me how it is that money has to be exchanged first.

i think it was a bit cheeky of you to complain

It appeared to me, and still does, that I had an entitlement under their policy. What's cheeky about asking for it?

 

[Bubbly Scot]

Every dictionary I have to hand says that "charge" means to ask a price or fee, which happened at the point my item was scanned at the till. It's not clear to me how it is that money has to be exchanged first.

It's a bit pedantic in my opinion. I'm not familiar with the exact wording of the poster but I always understood it to mean if you are overcharged, as in you have paid the money over, then you are entitled to the refund. I am sure this is the meaning most people take from the wording. What the assistant originally did seemed fair enough, keyed in the correct price and let you continue. I've posted elsewhere that I found a mistake in the price charged for some books so I continued with the purchase, paid the full price, then went over to the desk for a refund.

If so, can they legitimately refuse to honour the guarantee if I point out the error to them after the item is scanned at the till but before I hand over the money for it?

This is why we always have small print.

 

[rmelly]

Can you back this up with a reference? Every dictionary I have to hand says that "charge" means to ask a price or fee, which happened at the point my item was scanned at the till. It's not clear to me how it is that money has to be exchanged first.

Can you clarify EXACTLY when you pointed out the incorrect price? Was it just after she scanned it, or after she asked you for the money?

 

[Brooklyn]

I found a mistake in the price charged for some books so I continued with the purchase, paid the full price, then went over to the desk for a refund.

... which seems like a needless complication for both of us. Surely the whole point of the guarantee is that Tesco wants its customers to feel confident that any discounts advertised on the shelf will be rung up at the till - and that would not have been the case in my transaction today. I could understand them refusing to apply the guarantee if it had been the shop assistant who noticed and pointed out the error, but it wasn't. It was entirely my own intervention.

On the definition of "charged", if someone sends you a bill for a certain amount, isn't it fair to say that they "charged" you that amount when they sent you the bill? That is how I would understand the term anyway.

Does anyone have a proper legal definition?

This is why we always have small print.

No small print on the sign.

 

[Brooklyn]

Can you clarify EXACTLY when you pointed out the incorrect price? Was it just after she scanned it, or after she asked you for the money?

Not really applicable. It was at a self-service till, I had rung up the item myself and the machine was ready to accept my money.

 

[Bubbly Scot]

... which seems like a needless complication for both of us.

Not for me, as far as I was concerned, had I contacted an assistant after scanning (it was a self scan check out) and pointed out the error then she would have rung in the correct price and that would have been an end. What you describe as a needless complication was, to me, well worth the €14.97 refund. The way you handled it seems more complicated than it needs to be but I do see where you're coming from with your request for clarity even though I find it a bit pernickity.

 

[susie1]

Can you back this up with a reference? Every dictionary I have to hand says that "charge" means to ask a price or fee, which happened at the point my item was scanned at the till. It's not clear to me how it is that money has to be exchanged first.



It appeared to me, and still does, that I had an entitlement under their policy. What's cheeky about asking for it?

on previous experience, after being overcharged, the receipt must be presented as proof of purchase and verified against the display price, in your case, you DID NOT have a receipt therefore you were not charged for and did not pay the incorrect price as it was corrected prior to purchasing.

whats cheeky is that you had the item at the lower price and still wanted it for free

 

[Brooklyn]

on previous experience, after being overcharged, the receipt must be presented as proof of purchase and verified against the display price

In other words you don't have a reference.

The scenario you describe is somewhat different. The receipt in that case is not only proof of purchase, it's proof that a higher price was demanded. Whereas I already had the proof of the price differential - it was on the screen at the till.

I found the exact wording of the sign. It says "in the unlikely event of you being charged a price at the checkouts that is higher than the price mounted on the display, we will give you that item absolutely free and without quibble". I'll ask again, does anyone have a legal reference to show that you are only "charged" for an item once you pay for it?

whats cheeky is that you had the item at the lower price and still wanted it for free

I still don't see what's cheeky about wanting them to live up to their advertised policy.

 

[Brooklyn]

What you describe as a needless complication was, to me, well worth the €14.97 refund.

My point wasn't that it wouldn't be worth it, but that it shouldn't be necessary. If the only difference between getting the item free is whether you ask to get it for free before or after you pay the price they're asking, that seems like a silly technicality. The issue remains that the item is in their computers wrong and they wouldn't have known it if I hadn't pointed it out.

 

[rmelly]

I have to say that technically Brooklyn you are correct, however as the other posters have said (where this policy exists) it is easier to allow it go through with the wrong price and then claim to ensure there is no ambiguity.

 

[Bubbly Scot]

I'll ask again, does anyone have a legal reference to show that you are only "charged" for an item once you pay for it?

Perhaps it would better help your point if you found a legal reference to back up your interpretation of the posters. As Rmelly pointed out,you are technically correct.

Personally, I'll keep doing it the way I do, but just in the bigger shops. In small or local shops I wouldn't expect any sort of refund, just the price shown.

 

[Hurling Fan]

I do my shopping on line with Tesco and occasionally get charged the incorrect price for something i.e. different than what is advertised online. When I ring to point this out I have never got a full refund just the difference. Wondering if this policy of a full refund would also apply to their online shopping ... anyone know?

 

[Complainer]

Presumably, they must get away with fooling each customer once with this. The second time, the customer will just wait until after the money has been said to raise the query.

 

[Brooklyn]

Perhaps it would better help your point if you found a legal reference to back up your interpretation of the posters.

I've looked in a couple places but I don't see a legal definition of "charged" anywhere, which is why I'm asking if anyone else knows of one. In the absence of a formal legal definition, the dictionary definition seems to me the next best thing... and that backs up my interpretation.

In small or local shops I wouldn't expect any sort of refund, just the price shown.

Me either, but Tesco has that sign, so it's reasonable to expect it.

And yes, I certainly will complete the transaction next time. Ironically part of the reason I didn't do it this time was because I thought it would be less hassle for the shop assistants as well as for myself (from my own experience in retail, it's a lot more complicated to process a refund). That's me taught, I guess!

 

[bond-007]

Invitation to treat

A shop owner displaying their goods for sale is generally making an invitation to treat (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists [1953] 1 QB 401). They are not obliged to sell the goods to anyone who is willing to pay for them, even if additional signage such as "special offer" accompanies the display of the goods. (But see bait and switch.) This distinction was legally relevant in Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, where it was held that displaying a flicknife for sale in a shop did not contravene legislation which prohibited offering for sale such a weapon. The distinction also means that if a shop mistakenly displays an item for sale at a very low price it is not obliged to sell it for that amount

 

[Brooklyn]

Thanks bond-007, but I said in my OP that I was aware of that and that's not what I was asking.

 

[bond-007]

The way I would see it is that they have not charged the higher price until money changes hands and the transaction is completed. Until the money changes hands all bets are off.

I would see no obligation on Tesco to give anyone the item for free, even if they have a sign that purports to do so.

 

[Guest128]

The way I would see it is that they have not charged the higher price until money changes hands and the transaction is completed. Until the money changes hands all bets are off.

I would see no obligation on Tesco to give anyone the item for free, even if they have a sign that purports to do so.

Why do Tesco bother putting up the sign then? As the OP said, they were at a self-service checkout which was ready to accept the cash, including overpriced item, so whether they complained before paying or 5 seconds after overpaying is splitting hairs in all fairness.