header-logo header-logo

15 December 2011 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7494 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

Supermarket wars

HLE blogger Deborah L Parry wonders if supermarkets are off their trollies

"Last week, four of the UK’s biggest supermarkets were the focus of a report on supermarket price wars for BBC1’s Panorama, which suggested many of the pricing tactics used by supermarkets could potentially be illegal.

Supermarkets, like all other retailers supplying goods to consumers, have to comply with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277).

Regulation 5 prevents traders giving false information or information which deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer about, the price of products or the existence of a specific price advantage and which causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not otherwise have taken.

Regulation 6 prohibits misleading omissions where material information is omitted, hidden, unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely and causes an average consumer to take a different transactional decision from that he would otherwise have taken.

To assist in interpreting these very broad and general prohibitions, the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills has issued the Pricing Practices Guide (November 2010).

This guide has no mandatory force and may, in some instances, go beyond what the law requires. It does, however, take into account the requirements of the Regulations and provides guidance for traders ‘on good practice in giving information about prices’. One would hope and expect our leading supermarkets to do their utmost to follow it.

In light of the current supermarket ‘price wars’, there are concerns over the way some products are marketed and the wording used in relation to prices. Asda, for example, in addition to their ‘Rollback’ pricing promotions, also have had items marked, both on the shelves in supermarkets and online, as ‘WOW’ items...”

To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Issue: 7494 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll