Page 1 of 1
| Butter/Flora 20/07/2011 at 12:29 #18012 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
After yet another shop promised butter but delivered Flora (etc), I wondered whether this is actually acceptable practice to label, for example "jacket potato with butter" or "buttered scone" when it is clearly not butter? I'm not interested in the supposed health benefits of one over the other. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Re: Butter/Flora 20/07/2011 at 12:57 #18013 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
Seems to me you have a valid argument. If they hold out the supply as containing Butter then that's what you should get. It's a bit like asking for a Coke and getting a Pepsi- which I recall was something Coke-Cola itself took action over some years ago, visiting pubs and slapping solicitors letters on them. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Re: Butter/Flora 20/07/2011 at 13:23 #18014 | |
lazzer
636 posts |
By saying "buttered" scone, they may well be able to extract themselves from any legal procedings by claiming that they were using "buttered" as a verb, and not as a noun, effectively saying that they buttered their scones with margarine. It's the same as saying "we hoovered the floor with a Dyson." The brand Hoover has become interchangeable with "vacuum cleaner", just as "buttered" is becoming interchangeable with "spread". Sue them and see if I'm right. 
Log in to reply |
| Re: Butter/Flora 20/07/2011 at 14:33 #18017 | |
Backup
89 posts |
Have your local Trading Standards got anything to say on the matter?
Log in to reply |
| Re: Butter/Flora 20/07/2011 at 14:37 #18018 | |
|
afro09
167 posts |
i remember reading about a year ago, about a an amefican man who took a civil court case against an american food company because they labeled a product "with butter", his claim was that it was not real butter in the product so it should have been labled "with dairy spread" but the american court ruled that real butter is a dairy spread too as it is made from dairy produce and the so called dairy spread could be called butter as it contained all the ingredients of butter with extra ingredients added, although the man did win a substantial payment as he was allergic to MSG which was one of the added ingredients, the court ruled in the mans favour because the ingredients on the packaging simply said butter, the court said the butter was a separate product within one package so therefore all the ingredients used to make the butter should have been listed separatly on the packaging.
Log in to reply |
| Re: Butter/Flora 20/07/2011 at 15:31 #18024 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
Online definitions for "buttered" seem to be on your side as most if not all of them (the relevant ones, anyway) all mention it is the act of spreading butter, not spread, on something, such as toast. On a sort-of related matter, I think I read on Wikipedia once relating to pubs serving drinks in a wrongly branded glass. I seem to recall it mentioning if they do that (such as a pub I was in not long ago serving one of the Irish Ciders (Magners or Bulmers) in a Beck's Vier branded glass) then it is passing off, something that some drink brands may object to. Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Last edited: 20/07/2011 at 15:41 by UKTrainMan Log in to reply |
| Re: Butter/Flora 20/07/2011 at 16:34 #18037 | |
|
GeoffM
6376 posts |
Some interesting points. I was just curious really, as it seemed so widespread :whistle: though I do much prefer butter. Thanks. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Re: Butter/Flora 21/07/2011 at 13:08 #18087 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
Ooer... passing off... m'learned friend knows quite a bit about that. Fortunately he's busy invigilating an exam at the moment so we aren't going to get chapter & verse :lol: There's also a sale of goods point... it doesn't conform to the description. I think Lazzer may have the kind of linguistic wriggling in mind that was the point of a story Lord Denning used to tell, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't apply in this case. (Opinion given without liability... I don't want m'learned friends after me for negligence!) Oh the story... A barrister goes into a teashop and orders the strawberries & cream. Before they arrive he decides to do without. In due course a bowl of strawberries arrives, liberally doused with cream (I hope your mouths are watering as much as mine...) He refuses them citing the Sale of Goods Act, on the grounds that they don't conform to the description: "I ordered strawberries and cream, not strawberries with cream". No, I'm not sure I found it that funny either. But I'm not a lawyer :lol: Log in to reply |
| Re: Butter/Flora 21/07/2011 at 14:00 #18088 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
Ah SoGA79 one of my favourites (after VATA94 that is)! Section 13 Sale by description. (1)Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond with the description. (1A)As regards England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the term implied by subsection (1) above is a condition. (2)If the sale is by sample as well as by description it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description. (3)A sale of goods is not prevented from being a sale by description by reason only that, being exposed for sale or hire, they are selected by the buyer. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Re: Butter/Flora 21/07/2011 at 20:53 #18121 | |
agilchrist
258 posts |
I prefer Public Notice 197, ample night time reading.
Blessed are the true believers, for only they shall walk the Path, and they shall be welcomed unto the realm of the Ori and made as one with Them. Log in to reply |