My general experience in the US is that if the wrong price is on a product, the store honors that price. Most do it for customer relations’ sake, but I think it also might be fear of being accused of bait-and-switch.
Bait-and-switch entails an external ad for a certain deal, which is reneged or reworked once the customer is in the store. But if a customer who compares prices has seen a cheaper price at Target for widgets than at Walgreen’s, returns to buy them at Target, then finds the “real” price is different because of mislabeling, B-A-S’s definition can certainly be stretched to include this.
I’ve never understood how the right to refuse service is even debated. It should be basic and obvious IMHO. I have the right to refuse to be a buyer (exercised simply by walking on past a particular store), and they have the right to refuse me service. I don’t get the big deal.
True, but overriding this is the fact that giving a misleading price indication is a criminal offence in England and Wales. So, for that reason, and general good customer service, most retailers would be wise not to follow that course of action.
I can’t speak for your country, but in the US, at least, there is a tradition of having places of business that were whites only. I think you can look online in civil rights era websites pictures of businesses with signs like “whites only” or “no colored.” There’s the apochraphyl “No dogs or sailors allowed” from Norfolk, VA, too.
Refusing to provide service to a group because of their ethnicity, or occupation, is now illegal in the US. Some people extrapolate that into a belief that it’s illegal to deny service for any reason whatsoever.
**Walloon **has it right about the law in the absence of a specific statute.
Many states have bait-and-switch statutes. If you want a number, you’ll have to do your own research–I don’t find it readily available anywhere. The statutes that I looked at for California and Tennessee require intentionally misleading action in crafting the advertisement with regard to price. If the retailer simply decides not to sell the good to an individual customer at the price offered in a legitimate advertisement, they can legally do so even under those statutes.
There are also federal consumer protection laws, but again I don’t think this would qualify as a deceptive practice under those laws (assuming the facts given in the hypothetical are the only relevant ones).
Thanks for that. I undrstand the US tradition, and even here we have all manner of anti-discrimination laws. But still, there’s something about the concept that if I am the owner of a business, I have every bit as much of a right to refuse to enter into a contract of sale, and for whatever zany reason, as the customer has to decide to walk out the door. I’ll admit the discrimniation laws are an added complexity, and if I’m systematically refusing, say, Asian people day in and day out, then I should have a case to answer, but as a general principle, I reckon “my business, my rules” isn’t too bad.
You are correct that you are not a lawyer, and it shows. It is true in America, though there are some jurisdictions in which it might be the case that, in certain situations, the retailer would be running a risk of illegality if it was a policy, etc. In addition, there are certain laws in some jurisdictions about proper labelling of prices, which might apply, though which don’t prevent the retailer from refusing to sell the item, for no reason at all.
On preview, what others have said. Just a thought, making a blanket claim about the law should usually be preceded by some legal research first.
