zephyr Posted July 1, 2004 Author Posted July 1, 2004 I find no difficulty in drinking from the furry cup, it's later that it can turn into a poison chalace. How do you hold your liquer girl? Tightly, by the ears!
Observer Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 Still (access55 that is shock, not an invitation to treat)
geo Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 My apologies ;-) No nead to apologise I see your point and in a generalising sort of way i agree with you. I must say Zephyr does take it up a level with gramatic inuendo, top marks I am sure Observer can also see your point. Geo
access55 Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 Don't think anybody has seen my point for a few weeks now, agreed on Zephyr's skill with words.
Observer Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 I'm chilled and happy..... I thought my face drew the 'tease' remark and I did actually find that very witty. Hence my later remark that it wasn't an invitation etc No worries.
access55 Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 Ah I get you now, bit slow on the uptake there my mind's somewhere else.
geo Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 an invitation to treat Off topic i know, but !! Its going back someyears since we covered law at uni, but isn't an invitation treat the basic principal of an item offered for sale with a price tag ? - as covered in the sale of goods act ?
Ripsaw Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 /off thread (as per the above) isn't an invitation treat the basic principal of an item offered for sale with a price tag ? - as covered in the sale of goods act ? See: The "Argos" Example (bbc.co.uk) /back on thread...
Stavros Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 I read about this many years ago: Consider the case of the car dealer who promised a car for "1,000 bananas." Of course he meant $1,000, but when a customer came in with 1,000 bananas, the dealer refused to sell the car. The consumer sued the dealer, and was awarded $1,000 in compensatory damages (the value of the car)... and $100,000 in punitive damages to punish the dealer for misrepresentation. Not only can you be sued if you lie in your advertising, but you can also get in trouble with the Feds. The Federal Trade Commission investigates false advertising claims and can issue a "cease and desist" letter to any company it alleges is in violation of the law. The FTC also sues companies involved in deceptive advertising. Second, you must sell merchandise that is not shoddy or defective. For instance, I know of a customer who ordered furniture from a store and when it arrived, he found a couple of defects in it. He returned the furniture and demanded his money back, but the furniture store refused. The customer sued. The jury awarded him what are called "treble damages" - three times the amount of his order. These sorts of cases are brought under state consumer protection statutes. Such laws are designed to protect consumers from deceptive or unfair trade and business practices. Besides deceptive advertising and selling substandard merchandise, the last main area that small businesses need to be aware of vis-á-vis consumer protection statutes has to do with deceptive pricing. First, avoid making phony price comparisons with other merchants or with your own "normal" prices. For example, there is nothing wrong with proclaiming that at your sale this weekend, the price for a particular $250 item will be "$100 off - $150!" However, if your normal price is really $200, not $250, then actually, the sale price is only $50 off - and you are breaking the law. Second, be careful when you use the word "free." Yes, it is powerful and can draw customers, and it is for that very reason that many states have severe restrictions on use of the word. Free means free. For example, the New York states that "any limitations or conditions imposed on a "free" offer must be disclosed in advertising... a description of the condition must be near the word "free" (an asterisk plus footnote are not good enough), and in type at least half as large." The upshot of all of this is that you need to avoid deceptive advertising and pricing, and treat consumers with honesty. If you do that, all will be well, and if you don't all will not. Don't argue that it's American Law, we are a litigious society and I would bet money on the same result under English / aka Manx Law! Stav.
zephyr Posted July 1, 2004 Author Posted July 1, 2004 So the upshot of all that is that we are going to see Obs in court accused of advertising infringements (unless she's had a wax and doesn't have a fringe)
Observer Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 You couldn't, because an invitation to treat is not making an offer. The offer takes place when the customer offers to buy it. Goods you see on sale with price tags etc, are not on offer - it is merely an invitation to treat, an invitation to make an offer. The person who is selling the goods accepts (or refuses) the offer for consideration (usually money). So, in short, I was not making an offer and neither was I encouraging access55 to make one! I'm innocent guv....
Stavros Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 Oh dear, it's the old Offer, Acceptance & Consideration rule! I consider the offer as the price, the acceptance as the acceptance of the offer and the consideration as the (usually money)! Contract complete! Stav.
Observer Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 Those are some of the elements required to enter into a contract but there also has to be intent (intention to be legally bound and enter into the agreement) and capacity (of sound mind, old enough - a minor cannot enter into a contract etc) further it cannot be a contract if the subject matter is illegal. Anyway, when you pass shop windows or see advertising detailing sales etc, that is not an offer - the retailer is not obliged to sell to you at the prices indicated. The customer makes the offer when he approaches the retailer to purchase the goods. If the offer is acceptable (which it will be as he has given you an indication of what he expects to get for it) then he accepts your offer to buy the goods for a consideration (usually money) So you cannot insist on buying something for the price indicated - it is a goodwill gesture if something has been mispriced and they then sell it to you for that amount. So if someone makes 'an invitation to treat' they are not actually making an offer, they are inviting you to make them an offer. If someone isn't even making an invitation to treat, then they are not inviting you to make an offer. I hope that's easier? I'm still innocent......
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.