- posted
20 years ago
Litten Tree scandal
- Vote on answer
- posted
20 years ago
- Vote on answer
- posted
20 years ago
- Vote on answer
- posted
20 years ago
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.
- Vote on answer
- posted
20 years ago
Which law is being broken?
Robin
- Vote on answer
- posted
20 years ago
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.
- Vote on answer
- posted
20 years ago
"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.
- Vote on answer
- posted
20 years ago
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???
- Vote on answer
- posted
20 years ago
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