A Law Unto Themselves?

[blazey]

Its funny you should mention this, I dont need to search for this because I already have an answer already, and you shouldn't really use wikipedia to find out what the law is, its not classed as a reliable source!!

I once got refuse onto the bus because I wanted to pay in change instead of paying with a £10 note, mainly for the bus drivers convenience rather than my own. He showed me up in front of the passengers, and this was a morning service that was full, and made a fuss for about 10 minutes about it.

I complained (being the dragon that I am) to Lancashire United and they said that this kind of policy was an old one, and they used to be able to accept no more than 21pence (or 23, cant quite recall the exact silly number) and I wanted to pay 30 pence.

His manager apologised though and said this kind of policy is just old fashioned, and bear in mind POLICY, not law, and they no longer use it. Any place that still uses this kind of policy is a bit rare to come by, and I dont see why they shouldnt take you're money for carrier bags as they're the price of coppers anyway, so if they start showing you up, simply complain loudly about them not accepting the value of the customers money and demand to speak to their superviser/manager, they'll soon accept your money, which is what I had to do to get on the bus!

[MargaretR]

Coinage Act 1971 (c.24) - Statute Law Database
Checked the wikipedia entry with the Government website-- wiki quote is correct

[blazey]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Coinage Act 1971 (c.24) - Statute Law Database
Checked the wikipedia entry with the Government website-- wiki quote is correct

I dont think its still in much use though because i've typed the act into the west law database and its not got a 'blue C' next to it which means current, but on the other hand its not got the red square near it either which means it no longer stands.

I don't think the manager of any shop would refuse your change though just for carrier bags, and as far as my shop work experience goes, I've never been taught to use this policy, so I still think its just an old fashioned law that isn't common anymore.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Where did the carrier bags come from? I think you misunderstood what I said. I mean offering bags of 2p coins to pay for £50 worth of shopping!

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by blazey

I dont think its still in much use though because i've typed the act into the west law database and its not got a 'blue C' next to it which means current, but on the other hand its not got the red square near it either which means it no longer stands.

I don't think the manager of any shop would refuse your change though just for carrier bags, and as far as my shop work experience goes, I've never been taught to use this policy, so I still think its just an old fashioned law that isn't common anymore.

The fact that it is still shown on this site indicates that it is still current law
Coinage Act 1971
https://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Search...ll+Legislation

[blazey]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

The fact that it is still shown on this site indicates that it is still current law
Coinage Act 1971
https://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Search...ll+Legislation

I know it's still law but on this database that we are to use (west law and lexisnexis) its saying its not out of date, but its not got the right icons next to it to show that its binding so to speak.

Have you ever been told u cant pay more than 20p in coppers because you're breaking the law?
Would you ever consider reporting a shop for breaking the law if you saw them accept more than 20p in coppers?
What response do you think you would get, or what kind of punishment do you think the shop would get?

I think it'd be dropped due to it being an outdated law that nobody has bothered to change, there are loads of laws still in statute that aren't in practice, I'm pretty sure there was a thread about some only last week?


I'd link the database and show you what I mean but you have to be a subscriber to them to have access, but both are the ones used by solicitors and barristers because they are updated regularly, and I'm just reading what it says on there.

[blazey]

I've looked into it a bit further and some of the sections have been removed and some have scary exclamation marks next to them which indicates they have problems with the section and they need revising.

The statute just clearly has 'issues'

[yerself]

Some words of wisdom for Mr. Fruit Conserve Sandwich:

Learn to accept in silence the minor aggravations, cultivate the gift of taciturnity, and consume your own smoke with an extra draft of hard work, so that those about you may not be annoyed with the dust and soot of your complaints. ~William Osler

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

But I was under the impression that your stance was; "I’m far too thick skinned to let childish behaviour bother me." If this is so then why should you dignify such behaviour with an equally child like response?

Being thick skinned means that I don’t allow the insults and name calling to affect me. They are water off a duck’s back. That doesn’t mean that I forgo the right to answer back in kind if I choose to and on some occasions I choose to.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by entwisi

Never changed but it is not the case. Until the vendor accepts money no contract exists. Therefore no contract, no legal standing on either side. Equally you can withdraw your offer of money at any point up to the point of a contract being in place.

e.g.

I come to buy a car from you. I look around said car and think its wonderful, I verbally offer (lets imagine a real value) £2000. you accept but no money changes hands. I go off to get a loan, its refused, You have no contract with me so I can pull out. or say its agreed but I find another car better suited for less, again I can pull out as no contract is in place. Equally, you agree a price with me, then 10 minutes later someone turns up and offers £3K. You are quite in your rights legally to take that money. (Morally you stink but hey thats not what we are discussing here).

Equally with ASDA, they put things on the shelf and you are 'invited to treat'. Untill they take your money from you they can pull out at any time without reason. Even after money has changed hands, if it can be proven by ASDA that the price was erroneous and it is clearly an error they can cancel teh contract(it is up to them to prove that the purchaser would have 'known' teh price was erroneous but thats a different discussion again).

e.g. a website advertises an item and instead of it being £999.00 its incorrectly priced at £9.99. even if they have taken your order, accepted money and provided a receipt they can cancel the contract as it is clearly an error. In a relatively recent case Kodak advertised a camera which retailed at that time at £249 for £99. Lots of people bought one(me included). Kodak had taken our money in that they had provided an email saying this is your receipt. The website had also done a credit 'hold' on our debit/credit cards. 2 days later they sent an email saying it wouldn't be honoured. however when pressed in law the reasoning was that this was a model that was a)due for replacement in 2 months (end of line) b) had reported battery life issues and c) had one or 2 spuriously bad reviews it was deemd that teh price could legitimately considered a 'normal' discount in order to clear stocks of an unpopular model. Kodak capitulated before it went to court as they didn't want a precedent to be set. The key things taht won for teh consumers was that we had a 'contract' as Kodak had accepted our money by processing the payments, had given a receipt and as described above it was deemed a fair bargain.

Just what are the facts governing sales of good in shops? They are like I stated at the outset with a proviso of “Or has that changed too?”

No one has come back with evidence that my opinion is wrong. Examples are not evidence.

But I can give examples as well, although not evidence it backs up my belief.

Several years ago on a Saturday my old telly died in a puff of smoke. I went to Comet, choose the set that I wanted to buy but was told that none were in stock. The shop assistant rang another branch in Wigan and came back to say that they had some in stock and they would send one over on Monday. That was no good to me ‘cos it was a Saturday and Match of the Day was on in the evening and an FA cup game on the Sunday so I selected another TV paid for it and took it home. Take note that they were prepared to send a set from another branch.

A couple of years or so later I was back in Comet looking for a replacement to my 20+ years old Pioneer separates HiFi system. The cost of separates was prohibitive so I opted for the modern stereo systems with CD player, cassette, turntable etc. I found just what I was looking for at £231.xx.

I called an assistant over told her I would like one of those please. She took the card, went to a computer terminal and after a short while came back to say they had no more in stock and the display was not for sale. I wouldn’t have bought it anyway. Another similar system was £340 and lesser ones were in the £250 range at the time I thought that £340 was too much. Whilst I pondered the assistant went back to the computer terminal and came back to inform me that they had some in stock at the Rochdale branch.

“I’ll pay for it now and you can ask Rochdale to send one over and I will come and collect it tomorrow” I volunteered.
“Sorry sir we don’t transfer stock between branches. You can always go to Rochdale and get one for yourself” she added brightly.

So I drove over to Rochdale located the same model and was astounded to discover that it was £321.xx.
“This same model is £231.xx at the Blackburn branch” I informed the salesperson.
“No sir all prices are the same in Comet unless they are manager’s specials or ex-display”

I bought the system and went home.

Next day I went back to Comet and lo and behold the system that I had wanted to buy was now priced at £321.xx.

I left with the thought in my mind that the salesgirl in Blackburn had been quick witted enough to spot that the price on the ticket was different to that on the computer and came up with the none in stock excuse as a means of not having to sell the goods at the £231.xx price because I had offered to buy it and had the cash in hand. Meaning that once I had offered to buy it and produced the cash in my hand to enable me to do so, which I did, Comet would have been obliged to sell me the unit at that price.

I accept if the ticket had stated something ridiculous like £95 that would have been obvious that it had been priced wrongly and they could have stated so and withdrew it on the grounds that it was obvious that the price was wrong. But priced at £231.xx it was similar to other models so to me the price seemed to be about right for that one.

A year or so later I was back in Comet wanting to buy a vacuum cleaner because mine had given up the ghost.

I choose a Henry one but sadly they had none in stock. They were very popular at the time. You’ll never guess what the assistant told me.

“Would you like to pay for it now and we will have one sent over from Wigan and you can collect it tomorrow.”

All that points to the fact that once a customer has indicated that he wants to buy a particular item and produces the money to do so, the sale is clinched except for exceptional circumstances like an obvious wrong price.

But then again wasn’t there something many years ago when Hoover were offering something at a ridiculously low price and thousands of people applied to buy it? When Hoover tried to get out of making the sale, the court judgement was that they had to honour the offer. It cost Hoover millions and some high up’s job. Or in other words once the customer had indicated that he wanted to buy the item and produced the cash to do so, the sale had to go through.

I notice that your last paragraph bears out what I have stated. In that once an offer has been made and intent to pay established the deal must go through.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

This however, is about facts and the fact is that what Jambutty claimed was a fact was in fact an erroneous interpretation of what he perceived to be the facts.

Prove it! I have to write a few more words because Prove it! is too short to be accepted.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by blazey

It just annoys me that people can't be bothered to actually CHECK the law before they mouth off about what they THINK is the law.

And I dont think I will ever be as equally big, ugly or old as you, but at least I know I will always be more intelligent than you.

Why dont you just get over the fact that asda can sell or refuse to sell their product to whoever they want.

Forget about using houses as example, use pedigree dog breeders. If a dog breeder invites you to his house to view the dogs, and implies he is willing sell to you there and then, but upon your visit realises you are not a suitable owner for whatever reason, maybe for example the dog doesn't like cats and you own a cat, who knows, whatever reason, then he simply has the right to send you away. There is no law stating that he must accept your money when they offer to buy something that you have put up for sale.

You want a real example? Here is the case that counters what you are trying to argue. When you have finished reading it hopefully you will be enlightened to the position of the law and stop being a windbag as Ianto would put it.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd

Queen's Bench Division
16 July 1952

Subject: Sale of Goods
Keywords: Criminal liability; Offer and acceptance; Pharmacists; Poisons
Summary: sale by or under supervision of registered pharmacist
Abstract: It is a well-established principle that the mere fact that a shop-keeper exposes goods which indicate to the public that he is willing to treat does not amount to an offer to sell. The defendants had adopted a "self-service" system in their shop, which consisted in allowing persons who resorted to the shop to go to shelves where goods were exposed for sale and marked with the price. They took the article required and went to the cash desk, where the cashier or assistant saw the article, stated the price, and took the money. In one of their departments there were on certain shelves ointments and drugs coming within Part I of the Poisons List. Before any person could leave with what he had bought in that department he had to pass the scrutiny and supervision of a qualified pharmacist. The question for the opinion of the court was whether each sale was effected in accordance with the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 s.18(1)(a)(iii) which provides that the sale of any poison included in Part I of the Poisons List shall not be lawful, unless "the sale is effected by, or under the supervision of, a registered pharmacist." Held, the mere fact that a customer picked up a bottle of medicine from a shelf did not amount to an acceptance of an offer to sell, but was an offer by the customer to buy; there was no sale until the buyer's offer to buy was accepted by the acceptance of the purchase price, and that took place under the supervision of a pharmacist; therefore, there should be judgment for the defendants.

Wooo! Who’s getting all bitter and twisted?

Re your doggie tale. Pun intended.

Would that be before or after the client indicated that he would buy the puppy? If you are going to quote an example then at least have the intelligence to quote all pertaining facts. I think that that also answers your “I am more intelligent than you” jibe. I had the intelligence to spot your error. You were stupid enough (and therefore of lesser intelligence) not to include a salient point. Thus it could be argued that I am more intelligent than you are. Not that I give a tinkers cuss anyway.

Re also the windbag jibe. It does take one to know one you know. So welcome to the windbag club. I elect you as president or at least chief windbag.

As for your pathetic attempt to make your case with the pharmacy thing. First of all that was in 1952 and there have been many changes to many laws. Secondly it relates to Poisons, where quite rightly the purchaser should establish his legitimate use before the sale is effected. I didn’t notice any age being mentioned and this topic is about the a person being refused the sale of alcohol because of age.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

No, we didn't see the poster, notice or whatever it is that Jambutty claims to have seen and that is half the problem.

Yes, I agree that I did make an assumption that he had possibly misunderstood the "Challenge 21" posters which exist all over the place and are a national scheme. That was why I had wanted to see these signs for myself to be sure that I knew what he was referring to.

I wasn't able to go earlier as I have been full of a cold but I did intend to go and look at the Asda in question tomorrow, when I will be in Blackburn for another reason, but he has since informed us that they have been removed.

Now as there is nothing to look at I would have just let the whole thing go but seeing as how you are prolonging the saga by insisting that we now all owe Jambutty an apology I have just phoned Asda at Grimshaw park in order to ascertain exactly what these signs looked like and clarify exactly what they did say, straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

The reaction from Asda was one of utter bewilderment. The only signs/posters/notices that Asda at Grimshaw park have ever used I am told are the common "Challenge 21" posters with which we are all familiar (and if you're not then I suggest you check out my previous posts) and which are all over the place in supermarkets and off licences. When I told them that no, I wasn't meaning those posters I was meaning the little notices at the checkouts which were facing the cashiers and which have recently been removed, I was told that there have never been any such little notices, that nothing has been recently removed and that the only signs or posters regarding the sale of alcohol are the ones which say that if you look under 21 you will be asked to prove that you are over 18 before you can buy booze.

Now as Jambutty brought up this saga the onus really is on him to prove that Asda has or had a policy of refusing to sell alcohol to people under 21 because according to what they've just told me they don't and never have done. It has always been the legal age of 18 which is the requirement in their store.

If you won’t take my word for it why should we take yours? Did you write down what was said verbatim? Did you record the conversation? No? Then you comment has no more validity than mine.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by blazey

Even if their requirement was 21 years of age, I think its important to point out that Entwisti was correct and it was unfair of people to be nasty to him and criticise him in such a harsh way.

Either way, it doesnt even matter to most people on the forum anyway as most people are over that age, and can buy alcohol regardless

Yup! Me to. At 70 I am well over the age but I don’t use the stuff anyway. And to think that you declared in an earlier post that you wouldn’t want to live to my age.

[emamum]

"Secondly it relates to Poisons, where quite rightly the purchaser should establish his legitimate use before the sale is effected. I didn’t notice any age being mentioned and this topic is about the a person being refused the sale of alcohol because of age." (jambutty)

alcohol is poisonous, when given to the wrong person