Litten Tree scandal

Al Ferrier a écrit :

Well, that's a splendid case of misleading labeling... the customer indeed gets whats/he asked for, but is nevertheless led into believing there's two products instead of one. If this is not misleading the consumer, what is it then ?...

I say : picket the litten tree pubs, stick bills all over them at night, have t-shirts with the message "Litten Ale = Courge Best. Look at the price" printed and go for a drink in there... and they'll axe Litten ale, so you only have Directors at £ 1.75 left on offer. :o(

But if they sold it only at L1.75/pint that would not be a 'scandal', right?

Following on from Ed Avis's message. . .

The _illegality_ occurs as follows: A person has a pint of cheap beer and doesn't like it very much so says '"oh well I suppose I better drink the more expensive one - it can't be as bad as this". But on purchasing it they get the same stuff all over again. Hence it is a misrepresentation for trade which is a criminal offence if TS can have the guts to get on the case.

In a nutshell the pub is SAYING "have something different" but GIVING the same.

Which law is being broken?

Robin

Not so. If say,they were selling Courage Best as Courage Directors, then that would be applying a false or misleading description to a material degree. It is legal for them to sell a beer under their own brand name, providing they have the relevant permission. Indeed in this case (and many others), it is the only way ScotCo will alllow permanent discounting of it's products.

"Alex" - a made-up name if ever I've heard one - said

I think most people will feel that while the letter of the law has been obeyed, the firm's been dishonest and untruthful, and is showing quite a lack of respect for their customers. They're bloody awful pubs anyway - like Wetherspoons without the character.

What surprised me was not that it happens, but that ScotCo say they are unaware of it. The Times quotes a spokesman for ScotCo as saying "We invest millions of pounds every year in promoting our beers, so it is not in our interests for anyone to sell our product under a different name. We do not condone this practice, which is misleading consumers. This is the first time we have heard of this, and we will be discussing it with the SFI group."

Really???

I don't agree. They are supporting the discriminating customers who make their informed choices based on their own tastes, and charging full price to the advertising-driven trendoids who won't drink something they haven't seen on a poster or a TV campaign backed by a multi-million-pound budget.

If you're a dedicated follower of fashion, you gotta pay for the fashion advertising.

Pierre