Straits Times boo boo is a ‘bed and switch’

Posted by admin on January 15th, 2005 filed in General

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so the opinions I have expressed in here are not to be considered expert legal advice or opinion.

I really hope I’m not the only one to notice a mistake here, because if I am, then I think the future of the average Singaporean consumer doesn’t look too good.

Excerpt:

Mr Seah Seng Choon, executive director of the Consumers Association of Singapore, said the ruling means that online prices must now be viewed ‘only as an invitation to purchase, not a contractual price’.

He warned retailers against abusing this landmark judgment by adopting what is known as ‘Bed and Switch‘ tactics, which involves a retailer deliberately using a low price to entice customers to place orders, then later claiming to have made a mistake. (Emphasis mine)

Either the reporter Ben Nadarajan has absolutely no idea what ‘bait and switch’ is all about, or the executive director of CASE doesn’t know what his job entails. Somebody tell him to ‘make his bed’!

Without looking at the actual text of the court decision, I don’t have an informed opinion about this case. But based on what I can glean from the news report, I believe the court’s decision makes it harder for the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading Act) 2003 to be enforced.

The Fair Trading Act identifies specific unfair practices in the Second Schedule of the Act, of which ‘bait and switch’ is:

8. Charging a price for goods or services that is substantially higher than an estimate provided to the consumer, except where the consumer has expressly agreed to the higher price in advance.

The ST report quotes the judges in their decision (accurately I hope):

‘The law should not go to the aid of a party who knows that the objective appearance does not correspond with reality.

It would go against the grain of justice if the law were to deem the mistaken party bound by such a contract.’

That simply does not make sense. By what measure are consumers supposed to ascertain if ‘objective appearance’ corresponds to ‘reality’? If ‘reality’ is meant to be market price, does that mean to say that as long as the listed price differs from the market price, or differs by a significant margin, then the consumer should not take it at face value?

Furthermore, how large would the discrepancy have to be before the consumer should decide that the prices are only meant to be an ‘invitation to purchase’?

Or can it really be as Mr Seng has said, that ALL online prices would be considered mere invitations to treat under common law? That would plainly be ludicrous. What would happen to ecommerce then? The result is uncertainty and lack of trust in online prices.

I think Mr Seng’s warning is a toothless threat if this decision is what I think it is. IF this Court of Appeals ruling is accurately reported by ST, then I think its an open invitation to Internet scamsters for a ‘bait and switch’ free for all.

From Straits Times - Price tag mistake: Court rejects customers’ appeal - Jan 14, 2005

PS: If there are any legal experts in Singapore law reading this, could you help me answer this question? Those of you who have friends who are lawyers in Singapore, I’d be grateful if you could refer this question to them.

Say in a hypothetical scenario where a shop merchant mislabels his/her goods, and the error is discovered when a consumer is purchasing the item, does the consumer have a legal right to purchase the item at the labelled price?