Such a mistake may seem implausible, but it happens, creating some very awkward moments for customer relations officers and some interesting material for consumer protection law.
The promulgation of the Consumer Protection Act, Act No 68 of 2008 (CPA), ushered in a new era for consumers. The CPA provides for a number of fundamental consumer rights and creates prohibitions on an extensive list of unfair business practices by suppliers.
Say 'goodbye' to unwanted direct marketing, 'totsiens' to deceptive representations about goods or services and 'hamba kahle' to those annoying late night callers who claim that you've won a competition only to obliterate your visions of Mauritius with a sales pitch. What is of particular interest for purposes of this article though, are the provisions relating to the disclosure of price of goods or services in s23 of the CPA.
The CPA stipulates that a retailer cannot display goods for sale without displaying a price for those goods. The wording of the CPA, in respect of how that price should be displayed, is fairly wide. It can be written, printed, stamped or located upon the goods. It can be on a band or a ticket, a covering, a label, a package, a reel, a shelf or 'other thing'. In a nutshell, it must be clear that the price you see is applicable to the goods that you are looking at. Now that you can see the price, the pivotal question arises: what if the price that you see is wrong?
The good news for consumers and bad news for suppliers is that, subject to certain exceptions, a supplier may not demand that a consumer should pay a higher price than the displayed price. If there is more than one price, then the lowest price applies. Thankfully, for suppliers, it is not a complete free-for-all for opportunistic consumers though. The provision won't apply if the price has been determined by public regulation, nor if the first price has been wilfully concealed by a second price. It also will not apply if the supplier has corrected an 'obvious error' and taken reasonable steps to inform consumers.
Here the tantalising thought for the consumer may well be: what is an obvious error, and what are reasonable steps taken to correct such? The CPA does not provide any guidance and so far there have been no decisions from the Consumer Tribunal or the courts to elucidate this issue. What is obvious to the retailer may be a lot less obvious to the person wanting the latest smartphone. Nevertheless, suppliers would be well advised to be vigilant about removing old or inaccurate price tags, labels and 'other things' from their stock.
Finally, the provision will also not apply if an unauthorised person has removed or altered the price. No doubt that will allow a store manager or two to breathe a deep sigh of relief. They may also be relieved to know that the CPA deems the shelf price of goods advertised at a discount to include the discount, unless the discounted and original prices are recorded next to the goods.
One of the laudable aims of the CPA is to protect vulnerable consumers. Certainly, if a consumer were aware of their right to insist on the displayed or the lower displayed price, it may make that consumer considerably better equipped to deal with unscrupulous suppliers. However, since suppliers themselves are vulnerable in these dark, global economic downturn times, it will be important for suppliers to ensure that price tags are correct - or failing that, that an excellent customer relations manager is at hand.
