On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 11:47:52 -0000, "Harry Stottle"
<sorryspamdoesntwork@nospam.uk.co> wrote:
[color=blue]
>This law has been in existence for several years, but it has been hard
>to define previously because of the legal jargon used in official
>documentation.[/color]

What is difficult to understand or define or "legal jargon" about :-

"Obligation to indicate selling price
4. - (1) Subject to paragraph (2) and articles 9 and 10, where
a trader indicates that any product is or may be for sale to a
consumer, he shall indicate the selling price of that product in
accordance with the provisions of this Order."

""selling price" means the final price for a unit of a product, or a
given quantity of a product, including VAT and all other taxes;"

(Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 102 The Price Marking Order 2004)
[color=blue]
>The ruling by the ASA, against a high profile company,
>has now made it much clearer,[/color]

ASA "rulings" (actually they are adjudications) have no particular
weight at all, the ASA is a private body set up and funded by the
advertising industry and its adjudications have no statutory
significance.
[color=blue]
>I cannot see any justification for quoting VAT exclusive prices for goods or
>items offered for sale to the general public, other than to mislead, and
>any company doing this needs reporting.[/color]

To Trading Standards as they are breaking the law - not the ASA which
is a toothless tiger.
[color=blue]
>Regarding eBay, perhaps someone should send a copy of the ruling to
>them, it is probably their responsibility to remove any advertisement
>which doesn't comply with the ASA ruling, and eBay should enforce it.[/color]

It isn't their responsibility as ASA adjudications have no legal
significance whatsoever.

--
Peter Parry.
[url]http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/[/url]