I Love Petsmart!

[andywg]

OK here's something to think about regarding the above, the mark up price on items.

Which wasn't what bignose was referring to, but rather whether you are happy to be overcharged for not noticing the price went through wrong since the opposite seems acceptable

For example a store buys bikes from a supplier at £1 each and sells them on at £29.99 each, making more then enough to cover costs, salaries, shop upkeep etc but with a big fat wad of 'profit' now this profit could be seen as taking advantage of customers ignorance because the customer does not know how much the shop paid for it and what a ridiculous mark up it has but it's accepted anyway as the correct amount. Yes fair enough the shop is there to make a profit but on the whole it is at the advantage of the customers ignorance.

The shop is providing a service as well. The customer now does not have to seek out a factory which makes bikes and then try and negotiate a sale agreement. By buying in bulk the bike shop can purchase the bikes at a cheaper unit cost. I am unaware of any stores with a mark up of close to 3000%. If there were any they would soon go out of business as competition comes in at less and less margins.

Another example is computers now if you go to a chain store like pc world and buy a pc, the shop will be making ALOT of profit (at least 10 times what it costs them) on it at the expense of the customers ignorance of how cheap and easy it can be to build it yourself.

Here you are forgetting about overheads. For one I don't believe they do make 10 times what it costs them. do you have any figures to support this? Either way the shop then has to pay for commercial rent, the staff, the heating, the lighting, the security, the slight increase to cover stolen products or those exchanged out of goodwill as well as the item and the shipping and the wages of all employees involved in selling and organising the display. Again, the shop is providing a service so you don't have to learn how to source parts from suppliers and then gain experience at putting a computer together.

There's far more to business than just the price a raw material is bought at and the price it is sold at.

So yes I'd say it is fair for shops to take advantage of customers ignorance, otherwise they wouldn't make the amount of profit they do.

Many shops make surprisingly little profit once all costs are taken into account.

 

[chrisdoesntmiss]

In the UK shops must sell things that are at the advertised price. Thats how it works. If the fish was in the wrong tank at that price it must be sold at that price.

 

[looby loo]

I agree

 

[Maximus]

In the UK shops must sell things that are at the advertised price. Thats how it works. If the fish was in the wrong tank at that price it must be sold at that price.

But thats what I'm getting at.

If a fish in a tank was priced, then fair enough. But this fish (male guppys) were not priced in this tank. And therefor, not for sale, unless stated otherwise.

EDIT: Spelling

 

[kribensis12]

Im cofused.

 

[goosej13]

haha YEP.. never get that 5 mins back from reading all the debating about basically 2 bucks lol

 

[Azaezl]

Ok...

The bike comparison, this was from personal experience, tescos often sell items off that are discontinued at the lowest price they can whilst still making a profit on them. One such incident was a pogo stick I bought for my daughter which I purchased at £1.50, knocked down from £25.99, they still make a profit on this so you have to wonder how much they got it for initially.

The pc world example, ok 10 times might have been a slight exaggeration but they do charge ridiculous amounts for the items. I can get you some prices to compare but for example, the pc I built cost me £400 which included the tft monitor, mouse, everything, the same pc(which you couldn't get with my cool case ) would cost double that from pc world or similar. I should have made myself more clear about the fact I meant including all the usual overheads, 'shrinkage', wages etc.

Small shops don't make much profit but I don't believe that the large chain stores don't, as they wouldn't be so large or their investors so rich

Back to the point though, I think it's perfectly acceptable for both the customer and the shop to take advantage in either situation. I would do it, it's a dog eat dog world and you have to be on the ball or get taken advantage of. That's just my thoughts on it though

I have a feeling this could go in circles

 

[kribensis12]

I have a feeling your right!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bignose]

How much a store marks up a product is NOT the issue at hand here. Don't confuse one issue with another. Argue specifically the point at hand here, not other issues.

Here is the statement I have a real problem with "I think it's perfectly acceptable for both the customer and the shop to take advantage in either situation" You are telling me, that you explicitly agree with the scenario I outlined above. In fact, I will repeat it here just to be sure:

Tell me whether or not you agree with this practice: An object is listed as costing $10. But, whenever the store thinks it can get away with it -- when it thinks the customer isn't paying close attention, or when the customer has a lot of items -- the store will charge $15 for it, and hope it doesn't get caught. You think that this is OK? Because if you do, then I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you.

But, if you disagree with that scenario, I just don't see how it is any different than taking to the counter an item that has been mistakenly priced lower than what it should be priced at and hoping that the cashier is ignorant or isn't paying close enough attention to notice the discrepancy. It's the exact same thing as the scenario in the paragraph immediately above, the only difference is that the customer gets more goods for their buck instead of the store getting more buck for its goods.

If you think that both are fair, I can guarantee I'd never shop at a store that you ran, nor at any other shop that would practice such dishonorable procedures. I don't think that many people would, either. Both scenarios are unfair, and neither one is right.

 

[andywg]

In the UK shops must sell things that are at the advertised price. Thats how it works. If the fish was in the wrong tank at that price it must be sold at that price.

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. Why don't you try looking at consumer information sites on this. The main consumer information site is Which?. This body will tell you that any mis-priced item as a result of a mistake does not have to be sold at that price as the seller has a right to refuse to sell. I recommend you check the Which? website before again stating your incorrect belief that an advertised price is binding. In case you don't want to go to that site, I have quoted the most important parts here:

If prices are advertised incorrectly

It is against the law for a trader to deliberately give misleading or wrong prices, and they can be prosecuted for doing this.

However, if the price of a product is simply wrongly labelled you don't automatically get to buy it for that price. For example, if a TV worth £599 has accidentally been labelled as £5.99 you don't, unfortunately, have a right to buy it for £5.99.

A retailer's right to refuse to sell

When a retailer displays a product for sale, legally it is giving you 'an invitation to treat', which means it is inviting you to make an offer to buy. The retailer can refuse that offer if it decides that it doesn't want to sell you the goods. To have a legally-binding contract the retailer must have accepted your offer to buy. So your rights depend on where in the sale process you are.

Before you pay

If you take a wrongly-priced item to the till and the assistant spots it, they can refuse to sell it to you for that price.

Ok...

The bike comparison, this was from personal experience, tescos often sell items off that are discontinued at the lowest price they can whilst still making a profit on them. One such incident was a pogo stick I bought for my daughter which I purchased at £1.50, knocked down from £25.99, they still make a profit on this so you have to wonder how much they got it for initially.

How do you know they make a profit and are not just getting a small amount of money for something they would be just dumping to make room for more profitable items. The fact the item is being discontinued would imply the company did not make the sort of profits it had hoped to.

Supermarkets are actually very prepared to sell items at a loss to get people in and shopping, there is specific legislation to ban stores from selling essentials (bread, milk, eggs etc) as "loss leaders".

The pc world example, ok 10 times might have been a slight exaggeration but they do charge ridiculous amounts for the items. I can get you some prices to compare but for example, the pc I built cost me £400 which included the tft monitor, mouse, everything, the same pc(which you couldn't get with my cool case ) would cost double that from pc world or similar.

However you knew what moniitors to get, what mouse, what motherboard, how much RAM. PC World provides a service in that someone doesn't really need to know what they are doing, but can just buy a PC. I can probably tile my floor for less than a professional tiler will cost, that does not mean I think he is making a huge profit, but offering a service to those that do not want to learn how to tile just to get a nice floor. You are confusing making something yourself with a business that has to make profit or else it folds. I am willing to bet you did not allocate any time costs to the price of you building the PC.

I should have made myself more clear about the fact I meant including all the usual overheads, 'shrinkage', wages etc.

I still don't think that PC World make a 100% net profit on any PC they sell. If they could do that then someone would move straight in and undercut them.

Small shops don't make much profit but I don't believe that the large chain stores don't, as they wouldn't be so large or their investors so rich

And that is economy of scale. as the stores get bigger they sell more and can order more. The profit margin in a large store is almost always less than a small store (hence why the smaller stores seem to charge more). It is only because there are so many sales going through a large store that they make more money on smaller profit margins

Back to the point though, I think it's perfectly acceptable for both the customer and the shop to take advantage in either situation. I would do it, it's a dog eat dog world and you have to be on the ball or get taken advantage of. That's just my thoughts on it though

And that is why we have consumer protection legislation. Otherwise the most vulnerable will be caught out. I assume from your statement you would be all for massively overcharging someone that you knew to be below average in maths, never mind the fact they have a small amount of money to live on?

I have a feeling this could go in circles

Indeed it will as some people will empathise and realise they do not want to be the victim of such a situation, while others will spend more time considering how it is to be the victor.

 

[GuppyDude]

Want a cookie? Fooling a Petsmart employed high-school student isn't too tough.

Grats on the finds though.

 

[Azaezl]

It might not be the issue but what I was saying is that's how the shops take advantage of customers ignorance, the general public don't know the the true cost of items so pay retail prices(which can vary greatly depending on the shop).

Yes I do agree with the scenario, if your not paying attention it's your own fault and I agree with you I wouldn't shop at a place like that but it does happen, probably not in large stores but it can easily happen in smaller stores or market stalls where the owner(the person who is going to profit most) is most likely present.

There are thousands of con artists out there that would willingly sell things for more then they are worth, for example a load of old rubbish that cost next to nothing that is sold by such con artist as a pricless antique, thus taking advantage of the customers ignorance.


I think it's safe to say that we can agree to disagree and leave it at that or we will be here for days and I need to get some sleep soon

 

[backtotropical]

I think enough has been said on the morality of this issue, but i would comment on the debate about pricing.

For the avoidance of doubt, i refer to UK law. I don't know about the law in other countries.

Those of you who believe the customer is entitled to pay the marked price are wrong. As Andywg says, the marked price is what is known as an 'invitation to treat'. This means that the customer may offer to pay that price or any other price, but the seller is entitled to decline any offer. Only when payment is made is it a contractual agreement.

Anyone who thinks otherwise, instead of arguing about it, why not read up on it first? In the UK, this law is covered by the 'Sale of Goods Act'. You can read about it here.

It is a common misconception that you are entitled to demand goods for the marked price, but i'm afraid that is nothing more than a misconception.

Again, i refer to UK law only.

 

[Bignose]

I couldn't find anything specific on the US Law -- I am pretty sure that it is very similar to the UK law -- but I did find some interesting things on the Federal Trade Commission's website. This http/www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/scanffb.shtm is probably the most pertinent. It is a document about good pricing practices. It talks about how to ensure accurate scanning of prices, to do spot checks everyday, etc.

Most pertinent is that is nothing about if your scanner undercharges a customer, you have to give the customer that price. It is not proof that that is the way the US law works, but it is conspicuous in it's absence, because this document would be pretty much the perfect place to mention the requirement, if that was the law.

Maybe someone else can find an actual US law.

--------------------------------------------------

I am very surprised that anyone could think that it is okay for a store to attempt to overcharge customers if they think they can get away with it. Where does it end? Is it okay for stores to shortchange people then? (That is, give them change for a $10 bill when the customer paid with a $20.) Why not program the registers to just add 1% or 5% or 10% to the total of everyone's bill? Why not add some money on everyone who uses a credit card then? I don't think any of these things are right. Deliberately overcharging customers is wrong, in any of its forms. That's why there are fair trade acts and anti-monopoly acts and consumer protection acts.

 

[kribensis12]

The only thing is, i didnt break a law, so how does law have anything to do with this.