LogFAQs > #904284018

Zangulus posted...

Bugmeat posted...

Zangulus posted...

argonautweakend posted...

Thats just the way I look at it working retail if the old sale tag is up you give it to them if they insist.

Its wholly the managers decision. No company in their right mind would unilaterally accept an incorrect price without context. Accidents, and petulant workers exist.

In California it's not up to the manager at all. It doesn't matter if the sale is over and the tag was forgotten by a lazy employee. If it's there then it must be sold at that price.

I just looked into it, and that's not what the law is about. It's about preventing companies from advertising a certain price and then trying to sell it for more as a bait and switch type thing. It even gives an exemption to prices that had specific date ranges on them. I.E.: Sales that have ended, but the price is still visible.

Then you read it incorrectly. I believe you were likely confused by the use of the word "notwithstanding" in the second part of B&P code 12024.2. Notwithstanding means despite or in spite of. So it says "Charge an amount greater than the lowest price posted on the commodity itself or on a shelf tag that corresponds to the commodity, despite any limitation of the time period for which the posted price is in effect.

So even if the sale is over they still have to honor the price if they didn't remove the sale tags.

I figure that's where your confusion came from because despite knowing that it is indeed a law here in california, that word made me pause for a moment. I had to look it up myself. The word just feels a little counterintuitive to its actual meaning.

Pay special attention to sections e and f. F lists the only exceptions.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=12024.2
---

John Mellencamp said it best "Life goes on long after the thrill of living is gone."