Yes they do, in BC. It's the law.

i always though prices were "an invitation to buy" however the store has the right to refuse service, do they not? maybe citing price error/typo etc.

EG: Staples and Futureshop's BS

moving to Thailand or the Philippines somewhere tropical, chill out and fly friends and family over whenever they have vaca time

thats correct
they save their asses with exceptions

6 mill is nothing... you can't live your life on that! :P

i'd at least need 16 million dollars, so that my money could perpetually MAKE money for me.

No, it's not.

Many of the stores like Superstore, Wal-Mart, Zellers, Shopper's Drug Mart, etc. participate in the Scanning Code of Practice (SCOP), where if an item rings up at a higher price than what it says on the shelf or elsewhere, then they are obligated to give you the lowest stated price. SCOP is a voluntary program that stores can adhere to, but it is not the law.

6 mills all stored in a tax free savings account makes quite a good lumpsum for your spending.

So now you can work as a "hobby" instead rofl

I want =(

did the bank give them 6 mill into their acount?, or give them a 6 million overdraft limit??...

if the 2nd, they did nothing illegal, but are going to have a huge interest bill when they are found and have to pay the "loan" back.

One of the employees accidentally deposited $250,000 in my account one day and immediately I got a call telling me they made a mistake. It was for someone else. My 5 seconds of joy right there.

regardless of the sop the company uses, it still violates the comeptitin act of consumer law. they must take the lower of the two visibly legible prices.

[edit] i believe some places like shoppers n stuff follow it to a Tee where items under 5? 10? something that the price error results in the item being free of charge by way of an immediate rebate

but yeah, i'm wondering what kinda atm or bank teller gave em the money. you'd have to take a large chunk of that to make it worth while to leave. i need to find a bank like that

This reminds me shit I saw in the Bourne trilogy.

nipples is right,

http://www.cb-bc.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-b...g/h_00148.html

I've been told countless times, whatever they have label, they have to sell it to you at the price. They can change it right after though.

it's not really an exception. it depends on the medium. if the price was in a catalogue type of thng where it states that prices are subject to error blah blah blah and the issue a correction. But if you're in the store and see the price is totally wrong while still advertising the correct item, they've gotta do it.

But it's been my experience that they usually err on the HIGHER side of things, or they didnt have it in my size.

Sweet I'm going to FS and put a $5 price tag on a new plasma TV and then get my buddy to go in and buy it.

If the store won't sell it to you at a lower price what are you going to do call the cops?

That is part of the Scanning Code of Practice.

For those that participate in SCOP, if the item is $10 or less, you are entitled to receive the item free. If the item is over $10, you are entitled to receive $10 off the purchase price.

Which clause there states that?

It's called double ticking? double ticketing? something liek that.
you can google it

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc...chorbo-ga:l_VI

nvm. found it. section 54

wow, i wish i'd go to the bank some day and find that much cash. almost like that guy in the movie eagle eye

That's exactly what I was thinking.

^ LOL
6M at say 5% interest is only 25k a year LOL

There must be more to this. There is no way it can be that cut and dry. So anytime there is a price mistake, they have to abide by it? There's no possible way.

If going by those clauses to the very word, nowhere does it say they have to sell it to you at the lower price. It just says they can't sell it to you at the higher price. But that means they reserve the right to not sell it to you at all.

If that is the case, then after they have removed any incorrect signs showing the lower price, then they can sell it to you at the higher price, and they would not be in violation of section 54.

I dunno... that's how I see it.

You need to recheck your math.