panoma1 Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 24 minutes ago, grrclark said: That isn’t entirely accurate either, the shop do have a right to deny the sale if they state the wrong price is displayed in error. 18 minutes ago, Gordon R said: That is incorrect. The vendor is not obliged to sell at the lower price. grrclark - that is the vital difference. I would certainly be interested in the legal source of your information! Perhaps you could put up a link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longbower Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 Years ago , I worked in a friends shop, who used to print T-Shirts . Many times Kevin refused to print things on the shirts , he thought may be offensive , to someone, or a group. Some of them , Like the Nazi , and the twin towers ones were sick. He always explained , he would happily sell them the T-shirts though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) That’s the whole point though Rewulf, just because the complainent felt prejudiced against doesn’t make it so. He made those leaps of assumption, wrongly, and thankfully the supreme court have judges who are capable of critical, logical and rational thought, thought otherwise. The fact is it should have never had gotten to this point, but a lack of true ability in logical and rational thought meant the equalities commission picked it up and the lower courts awarded in favour of the complainent, wrongly. All because people do conflate things that they should not and make conclusions based on false premise. It is nothing other than people being hard of thinking. 21 minutes ago, panoma1 said: I would certainly be interested in the legal source of your information! Perhaps you could put up a link? https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-purchase/if-something-is-advertised-at-the-wrong-price/ Edited October 11, 2018 by grrclark Trying to type quickly on a train and making a howk of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 I think it was money well spent. and has massive implications for all that uphold freedom of choice.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 5 minutes ago, islandgun said: I think it was money well spent. and has massive implications for all that uphold freedom of choice.. I agree, I think the cost of the defence was wholly worthwhile and I applaud them for seeing it all the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 20 minutes ago, grrclark said: That’s the whole point though Rewulf, just because they complainent felt prejudiced against doesn’t make it so. He made those leaps of assumption, wrongly, and thankfully the supreme court have judges who are capable of critical, logical and rational thought. The fact is it should have never had gotten to this point, but a lack of true ability in logical and rational thought meant the equalities commission picked it up and the lower courts awarded in favour of the complainent, wrongly. All because people do conflate things that they should not and make conclusions based on false premise. It is nothing other than people being hard of thinking. Couldnt agree more , the fact that lesser courts upheld the complaint, when a common sense approach could have sorted the issue out years ago, says a lot for the agendas at work here. The equalities commision quite rightly, are going to take some serious flak from this also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 12 minutes ago, grrclark said: That’s the whole point though Rewulf, just because they complainent felt prejudiced against doesn’t make it so. He made those leaps of assumption, wrongly, and thankfully the supreme court have judges who are capable of critical, logical and rational thought. The fact is it should have never had gotten to this point, but a lack of true ability in logical and rational thought meant the equalities commission picked it up and the lower courts awarded in favour of the complainent, wrongly. All because people do conflate things that they should not and make conclusions based on false premise. It is nothing other than people being hard of thinking. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-purchase/if-something-is-advertised-at-the-wrong-price/ Thanks for that it appears it's not as straightforward as I thought! I suppose it depends on when, in law you are deemed to have purchased the item? As it appears that If you take the item to the counter and pay the shopkeeper the price marked on the ticket, before he claims it is wrongly priced?..........you are then entitled to keep the item? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sciurus Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 42 minutes ago, panoma1 said: I am not entirely sure, but I believe if something is in a shop with a price on it, it is an "offer" if someone agrees to pay the for sale price, that is an "acceptance"......these terms form a contract. That is why if you go into a shop and an item is marked up at a price, even if that price is wrongly marked up below the value....if you accept the item, it is your right to buy it at the wrongly marked price. Hi Panoma, it’s the other way round I am afraid. If a tin of beans is priced at £1, it is the prospective purchaser who ‘makes an offer ‘ to the shopkeeper (cashier) to buy the beans for £1 and if the cashier decides to accept the offer then a contract to purchase is made. So if the beans should have been priced at £2, the cashier can legally refuse the offer of £1. 1 hour ago, Rewulf said: How do you mean ? If the item is on the shelf or in a window with a price, one could reasonably expect it was for sale ? The same could be said if the item is ordered, like a cake. If when attempting to purchase said item, and the vendor doesnt want to sell, he could say , that is no longer for sale, or it has been sold pending collection, or I cannot fulfill that order ,I am too busy. What the vendor shouldnt say is, 'I am not going to sell you that item because I am prejudiced against your sexuality/ race / gender ect' Chris has it right, but the whole thing could have been avoided with a little tact, and a small lie. Rewulf, I have the feeling that “a little tact and a small lie” would have been worse. If the shop had indeed been targeted, then by refusing, the order by saying they were to busy, all the aggrieved party had to do was send someone else to order a non controversial cake and they would then have proof that it was a lie and they had been discriminated against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Sciurus said: Hi Panoma, it’s the other way round I am afraid. If a tin of beans is priced at £1, it is the prospective purchaser who ‘makes an offer ‘ to the shopkeeper (cashier) to buy the beans for £1 and if the cashier decides to accept the offer then a contract to purchase is made. So if the beans should have been priced at £2, the cashier can legally refuse the offer of £1 Sciurus, I don't want to appear intransigent, and as stated, I may be wrong, but surely, the vendor (shopkeeper) "offers" the item for sale in his shop at the price marked? The purchaser (customer) "accepts" the goods at the price "offered"? The issue is, when is the contract formed? It appears it is when the vendor accepts the money? Well having delved a bit deeper and it appears we could both be right!....or wrong! Lol! An article for sale in a shop at a marked price (dependent on circumstances) could be determined by a court as an "offer" or an "invitation to treat"........contract law is beyond me! lol! Edited October 11, 2018 by panoma1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 12 minutes ago, panoma1 said: Thanks for that it appears it's not as straightforward as I thought! I suppose it depends on when, in law you are deemed to have purchased the item? As it appears that If you take the item to the counter and pay the shopkeeper the price marked on the ticket, before he claims it is wrongly priced?..........you are then entitled to keep the item? Yes, in that case the contract of sale has been accepted if the shopkeeper accepts the wrong price without query. I’ll try to find a link later for a televised setup that happened in an Apple store (if I remember correctly) where each aspect of the law was executed. Some people got to buy an ipod marked up at a £1 for a £1, and some tried, but the sale was denied at the point of transaction as it was stated it was in error. They then did things like having a store assistant try to rescind the sale after the event. It was all done to see what the consumer and store assistant behaviour would be like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 No need! Sounds right to me! Every day is a school day eh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hambone Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 57 minutes ago, Rewulf said: You are correct, however it is the inference of prejudice that got this case as far as it did. Purchaser wants cake with slogan, vendor doesnt agree with slogan, so refuses to make cake. By inference, the purchaser has been associated with something the vendor finds offensive or distasteful . Purchaser being an 'activist' has got a large bee in his bonnet, and sets off on his mission. The mistake I made in my first post was, I didnt know the shop actually took the order, Ashers head office cancelled it due to not agreeing with the slogan. What they could have done was used some other excuse other than not agreeing to the slogan, lie basically. But obviously Ashers have decided to stand up for their beliefs , which are obviously not agreeing to gay marriage. You could infer from that, they find homosexuality and same sex marriage offensive, due to their Christian beliefs. They have won the case because this prejudice was proved wasnt directed at the purchaser, although he FELT discriminated by association. Hence the early winning case(s) ?Sorry if Ive made that sound more complicated than what it actually is ! I do not think for a moment that you could do such a thing 🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 19 minutes ago, panoma1 said: No need! Sounds right to me! Every day is a school day eh! It would be boring if it was otherwise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sciurus Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 Hi Panama 1, It can appear confusing, I am afraid. To have a legally binding contract, there has to be an ‘invitation to treat’, an offer and an acceptance of the offer. By displaying goods in a shop, the shopkeeper is indicating that the goods are for sale and is inviting offers (treat) for the goods. If an offer is made by a hopeful buyer, the shopkeeper can then accept or refuse the offer. Exactly like haggling in a market. This doctrine has been incorporated in common law for well over a hundred years. As years have gone by, to save all the haggling, shopkeepers display items they wish to sell, with a suggested priced, ie beans £1. However, the common law principles remain the same and in effect, at the till the buyer is technically saying ‘I will by the beans for £1 and the shopkeeper by accepting payment is saying I accept your offer. It is at this point the contract is made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Gordon R said: My view is that the bakery was deliberately targeted. If they had accepted the order, would the customer have had a change of heart, preferring to take the custom to somewhere where it would be refused? I will own up to having sympathy with Vince Green's view - it is only a cake and they are in business. That said - given that they were targeted and it has a deeper significance, I would have refused. The thing is Gordon, the bakery did accept the order and they accepted payment , there was no doubt that a verbal contract was made. Allegedly the cake was made (a picture of it exists) and it was only when the purchaser went in to collect it the manager (aka owners son I believe) refused to let him take it away, and (allegedly) things were said to the customer at that time which were taken as homophobic. Now my view is, at that stage, the bakery dug their heels in and wouldn't ever back down when faced with officialdom, possibly because they thought they were in the right. Who knows? So they went to court and lost, so they appealed and lost so they took it to the high court in London and lucky for them they won. Only then on a techicality It was reported in the Evening Standard (?) that their legal bill has been north of £300,000 but that would have only been the part of it. All the hours spent in meetings with solicitors, meetings with barristers, hotel bills, flights, taxis etc for what? The slogan wasn't really offensive to anyone, it just said "support Gay Marriage", not earth shattering. Would a Man Utd fan refuse an order bake a cake for a Man City fan if it said Support Man City? This whole case to me is about pig headed stubbornness, like neighbours who run up huge legal bills squabbling over a hedge. I don't believe for one minute they were deliberately targeted, if they were it would have been done in a more specific and pointed way and possibly filmed covertly. The message on the cake would have been a lot stronger for sure. I believe this was a case of the shop owner's son (?) shooting his mouth off, simple as that. Edited October 11, 2018 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 Vince - given what you now post, I am more inclined to agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 7 minutes ago, Gordon R said: Vince - given what you now post, I am more inclined to agree with you. But the Court of Appeal didn't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 Just now, Dekers said: But the Court of Appeal didn't! Only on a technicality, the devil is always in the detail. But my point has always been how stupid, and unnecessary, that it got that that far. The only winners were the Lawyers and they couldn't care less about the cake...…………….... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 Just now, Vince Green said: Only on a technicality, the devil is always in the detail. But my point has always been how stupid, and unnecessary, that it got that that far. The only winners were the Lawyers and they couldn't care less about the cake...…………….... Totally agree on that point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 Quote But the Court of Appeal didn't! The highlighted quote from Vince is what I agree with. Neither side really comes out with any credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 Quote The slogan wasn't really offensive to anyone, it just said "support Gay Marriage", not earth shattering. Would a Man Utd fan refuse an order bake a cake for a Man City fan if it said Support Man City? That would be offensive to a lot of people. Some people have their beliefs and are willing to stand buy them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 Just now, Gordon R said: The highlighted quote from Vince is what I agree with. Neither side really comes out with any credit. The lawyers came out of it very nicely in credit thank you!, Hundreds of thousands of ££££££ in the bank for them, all that money for what? a principle, if you think it was a principal. I think it was just a cake . Just crazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 6 minutes ago, Gordon R said: The highlighted quote from Vince is what I agree with. Neither side really comes out with any credit. By being willing to be trailed trough the courts for their beliefs, agree with them or not. I think Ashers come out of this with a lot of credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 15 minutes ago, Vince Green said: Only on a technicality, the devil is always in the detail. But my point has always been how stupid, and unnecessary, that it got that that far. The only winners were the Lawyers and they couldn't care less about the cake...…………….... The court said unanimously it was not discrimination how is that just a technicality. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millrace Posted October 11, 2018 Report Share Posted October 11, 2018 37 minutes ago, Vince Green said: I don't believe for one minute they were deliberately targeted, if they were it would have been done in a more specific and pointed way and possibly filmed covertly. The message on the cake would have been a lot stronger for sure. I believe this was a case of the shop owner's son (?) shooting his mouth off, simple as that. Ashers in the past have refused other orders without anyone taking them to court and are well known locally for there strong beliefs..so of coarse they wouldnt be "targeted" ..... Why do you refuse to accept the the verdict has a bigger picture to it than as you say just a cake....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.