wrong end of the stick

[byron]

It seems everyone has got the wrong end of the stick with the VAT thread. I was posing the question that when a Retailer quotes a customer a price it should be VAT inclusive. In short when I go to my Tailor and choose a material he says to me a suit in that will cost £XYZ and I know that price is inc. VAT. So when I chose the material for my upholstery he should have said that will cost you £XYZ not £XYZ and only when asked tell me that VAT was still to be added.
For the record the firm I am dealing with is highly regarded and established in the 1800s. They come on reccomendation and I have seen samples of their work on other boats.
It is a principle I am talking about not a legal issue.

ô¿ô

 

[boatone]

If you really want chapter and verse Byron ring your local Customs and Excise office and ask them what the law is.
I think I agreed with you in my post and I believe someone else (jfm?) also quoted the CONSUMER legal position that prices were deemed to include VAT unless specifically stated that VAT is extra. I presume a trader consistently flouting this could be prosecuted but suspect that in reality its another one of those laws that is difficult to police unless a specific complaint is brought too the attention of the authorities.

Oh yes...dont forget that an invoice must be issued and if the trader is vat registered their vat number must appear on the invoice.

As for the principle...doesnt really matter whether he should have said or not but whether he did and what you're going to do about it........................smile sweetly!

TonyR
boatone@boatsontheweb.com <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by boatone on Fri Jan 25 10:12:10 2002 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[jfm]

Re: dodgy legal advice follows

I haven't looked at the other thread (will do in a mo) but the law (for consumers as well as commercial bods) is quite clear that a price stated without mentioning the VAT position includes VAT. So if you mean a price to exclude VAT, you have to say so.

Of course, merely quoting a price or offering (in the shop window sense) something for sale at that price doesn't create a binding contract, nor does it create an "offer" that is capable of "acceptance" in the contract law sense.

 

[kimhollamby]

I think Trading Standards would have quite a bit to say about this. Some years back I remember coming under pressure from a local Trading Standards Officer in Croydon to make all editorially quoted prices in the magazine VAT inclusive. Certainly there would be on obligation on a trader, I'm sure.

Associate Publisher ybw.com websites kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com

 

[markc]

Re: I thought....

in a Fred Drift manner, that if a shop offered a product for a marked prce then they had to sell you the product at the marked price, or withdraw it from sale. If they say at the checkout "oh, this is really £xx" and ring it in the till, then they break the law and must be compelled to sell it to you at the marked price? I could be talking crap though!

 

[hlb]

Re: I thought....

No thats right. The price quoted is the price, unless it says. Plus Vat. I saw a barister some years ago on this one. Its a hard and fast rule, No buts.
Only thing in Byrons case as I understand it. Nothing in writting, so cant prove it.

Haydn

 

[boatone]

Re: Sorry....

....dont agree......
Goods in window with price tag is an 'Invitation to treat' and does not, in itself, constitute a contract. I believe they can withdraw if an honest error has occurred or even refuse to sell at all if they wish.

TonyR
boatone@boatsontheweb.com

 

[jfm]

Re: Boatone is correct imho

Boatone is definitely right on the offer/invitation to treat analysis. If a shop shows something in a window marked £X, that is not an offer capable of acceptance. So you cannot accept the offer and than claim there's a binding contract. The shop is free to say it is actually price £Y. That's based on 100year old caselaw (Carlill Carbolic). If they ring it up in the till and THEN try to change the price, that's different because a contract is made at the point the till is rung (based on 1960s law I think, Boots Chemist case). Haydn, your barrister is either wrong or is talking about different circumstances (you said "offer" in your post; if an offer is made, then yes the price is binding if the customer accepts it, but the whole point here is that a displayed price in a retail scenario is NOT an offer)

Of course, displaying the wrong price tags might contravene local trading bylaws etc, but that's different. The penalty is a fine/ticking off by Trading Standards bods, this does not give customer the right to buy at the advertised price

 

[ArthurWood]

Re: American influence

perhaps yer man had been in the US recently, where sales tax is added at time of payment, and he hadn't remembered he was back in the UK

 

[longjohnsilver]

Incorrect pricing

Well it still seems wrong if advertised/displayed price is not binding. Could you gey this law changed for us jfm, sometime this afternoon would be fine (send invoice to Haydn) going shopping tomorrow!! TIA ;-))

 

[jfm]

Re: Incorrect pricing

Agree. Will sort if Grinner is in the country today, else next week. Whatya planning to do? Stick a £9.99 price tag on a Mangusta and say gotcha as you hand over a tenner? Great, see you in Antibes next week.

 

[Bergman]

Re: Incorrect pricing

Have a care LJS

Works both ways

Nothing to stop you offering less than displayed price

 

[lanason]

Re: Boatone is correct imho

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co is indeed one of the most quoted cases in terms of Offer/acceptance and is used in most University degrees that have a module on Law.
Full details of the case can be found on www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/carlill.htm
for those of you that are interested

Adrian )