Consumer protection

Indication becoming misleading as to price - notice offering refund if goods found cheaper elsewhere - no offence where purchaser refused refund The Link Stores Ltd v...Indication becoming misleading as to price - notice offering refund if goods found cheaper elsewhere - no offence where purchaser refused refund The Link Stores Ltd v Harrow London Borough Council: DC (Waller LJ and Sir Edwin Jowitt): 21 December 2000The complainant visited the defendant's store where he saw a notice which read 'We won't be beaten on price.

If you find exactly the same package cheaper in a local store within seven days we will refund the difference.' He purchased a mobile phone from the defendant, but within seven days saw the same package on sale in another local store for 20 less than he had paid.

The defendant refused the complainant a refund and was charged with an offence of giving an indication to consumers which, after it had been given, had become misleading as to the price at which goods were available, contrary to section 20(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

The justices convicted the defendant and the Crown Court dismissed its appeal.

The defendant appealed by way of case stated.Fred Philpott (instructed by Dibb Lupton Alsop) for the defendant.

Damian Woodward-Carlton (instructed by Director of Trading Standards, Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Consortium) for the prosecutor.Held, allowing the appeal, that since a consumer might reasonably have been expected to infer from the notice that the price paid would be adjusted in his favour by a refund if he found the same package cheaper locally within seven days, the notice constituted an indication as to price; but that an offence under section 20(2) was only committed where (i) a seller gave an indication which became misleading after it had been given but before a contract was entered into and (ii) consumers could be expected to rely in entering into the contract on the indication after it had becoming misleading and (iii) the seller failed to take reasonable steps to prevent consumers so relying after the indication had become misleading and before entering the contract; and that, accordingly, since the charge alleged that the indication became misleading only at the time when the complainant had sought his refund, no offence contrary to section 20(2) had been proved.

(WLR)