Tiffany, a 23 year old mother of two spotted what she thought was a great deal while finishing up some Christmas shopping yesterday at the new Marshalls in the Shoppes at Rossmoor. But, she left the store empty handed. She found a great Dodgers jacket for her three year old son on a rack clearly posted as “$17.99-$19.99. However, when she took it to the register, she was told no deal, the sign was “our mistake.” Now, to be clear, getting this jacket for $19.99 was a terrific deal, but Tiffany knew something about her rights under California’s retail pricing laws.

When she asked the store to honor the posted price, they would not do it. Tiffany then asked for the manager and Juan entered the scene. Again, Juan said they could not honor the posted price and the correct price was $39.99. Since Juan presented himself as the store manager, and he would not sell her the jacket for the posted price, Tiffany believed she had no other options and left the store without the prized jacket—and with a very disappointed 3 year old boy.

Tiffany knew her rights under the law had just been trampled by Marshalls, but she did not think there was anything else she could do. Plus, while she and her son really wanted the jacket, she did not want to make a public scene, so she left the store.

To be sure, this was not the type of situation where one item gets inadvertently left on a rack where it does not belong. It was not that the $39.99 item was set on a rack posted with a $17.99 -$19.99 sign. There were several similar jackets and other items on this rack. The sign was simply wrong.

About 20 minutes after first leaving Marshalls, Tiffany decided to go back to the store and try again to buy the jacket for the posted price. When she returned to the store, she found that the sign now read $17.99-$39.99. The jacket she was after was still at the register, so Tiffany again asked to buy it for the original posted price. Again Juan was called in and again he indicated he could not do it. But, this time, Tiffany was a bit more forceful—polite, but firm in knowing the law was on her side.

After some further consideration by the store personnel, Tiffany understood that Juan was, in fact, not the manager as he previously presented himself. Now, the real manager, Carol Savinki, entered our little drama. She did not appear in person, but apparently on the phone she gave Juan the go ahead to make the sale at the original posted price.

Tiffany was able to complete her purchase in a manner consistent with the laws of the state of California—in other words, Marshalls did what they were legally obligated to do all along. They sold Tiffany the jacket at the posted price of $19.99.

But, by this time it began to appear that Marshalls was honoring the price only to get Tiffany out of the store—damage control so to speak. This caused Tiffany to wonder exactly what Marshall’s policy actually was in this situation. So, Juan was asked.

Juan said several times and with complete clarity that in this situation, their policy was not to honor the posted price, but rather to offer the customer a discount of about 10%. He insisted that this was Marshalls’ policy even if the 10% discount would result in a price higher than the posted price.

Recognizing that, since this is clearly against state law, it was pretty likely not the store’s official policy, Tiffany asked for the store manager. Juan said the manager was busy with a conference call. As Juan continued to insist the store’s policy was as he first stated it, Tiffany decided the only way to get to the bottom of this, was to talk to the real store manager.

In a few minutes Savinki appeared and Tiffany explained the whole story. After several attempts to avoid stating the store’s policy in the exact situation as it happened, Savinki finally admitted that the policy would be to honor the posted price. What then, Tiffany wondered, should she have done differently to get the correct price the first time?

Savinki insisted that Tiffany should have asked for the manager. But, this is exactly what Tiffany did and she got the wrong answer from Juan. During her first attempt to buy the jacket, Tiffany had no way to know that Juan was not the final authority.

During this conversation with Savinki, she wanted to know what else Tiffany wanted the store to do for her. Tiffany simply wanted a clear understanding of the store’s policy and to know how she could avoid a similar problem in the future. The bottom line answer from Savinki was to ask for the manager.

Clearly, a major corporation like Marshalls is not going to admit that their policy is contrary to state law. In this situation, Juan simply made a mistake, but it is troubling that he presented himself as the final authority, and that he was so insistent that the policy was to offer a 10% discount as compensation for the wrongly priced item—even if that would result in a price which was higher than the posted price, in this situation, almost double the posted price.

It is equally troubling that Savinki was very evasive when asked to define exactly what the policy was. Under these circumstances, even though eventually she acknowledged that the policy would be to honor the posted price, the store’s de facto policy was not to honor it.

See the related article below for more information about California’s retail pricing laws.