Furniture Stores Accused Of Misleading Customers

It was proved that High Street retailers of furniture and carpets were trying to deceive their clients offering them goods with false prices.

The results from the inspection of the stores of Carpetright, Dreams, DFS, SCS Upholstery, Furniture Village, Harveys and Benson Beds showed that these used different tricks in order to make people believe they saved money. You can buy a Contract for the Sale of Goods from  The Legal Stop.

The OFT criticized the deals claiming to sell goods at half price. It found out that often before the reduction of a certain article no items of the sort have been sold.

The opinion of OFT is that the previously high prices of the goods were not quite legitimate and this is in fact the main reason why such big sales were now possible.

Usually customers are easily duped to buy something when they see its price is reduced so much.

The final decision of OFT on this matter was that this was an “endemic” problem within the industry.

Gaucho Rasmussen of the OFT said: “Reference pricing can mislead consumers into thinking the item they have bought is of higher value and quality”.

This week Tesco was fined because it claimed it was selling strawberries at half-price.

The danger which threatens stores which continue to mislead their customers is a fine of up to 30% of their turnover.

After these news shares in Carpetright fell as much as 3%.

The executive director of Which?, Richard Lloyd commented that the special prices should really be special otherwise OFT would resort to serious penalties.

No comment came last night from both DFS or Dreams.

Surrogacy in the UK Needs New Guidelines

According to researchers, as there is now no regulation for surrogacy in the UK, mothers and babies are at risk of exploitation and due to this they have called for the introduction of new guidelines.

This warning was published this month in The Obstetrician and Gynaecologist in a review entitled Surrogate pregnancy: ethical and medico-legal issues in modern obstetrics.Many people are wondering whether the surrogate mothers will be assigned some kind of maternity leave.

It turned out that many healthcare professionals said they sometimes did not know what to do from an ethical or legal standpoint when it came to surrogacy.

After the UK laws on surrogacy, the intended family should not have to pay the surrogate mother anything else than her reasonable expenses.

Surrogacy contracts are not recognized by the law so the woman who gives birth to the baby is considered the legal mother.

Even when talking about host surrogacy and the woman who gives birth is not actually genetically related to the baby, she is again considered its legal mother.

Researchers wonder how surrogacy has worked in the past, as there were no clear figures about it.

Since 1985, about 800 children have been born from surrogate mothers in the UK. The expenses for such an event are around £15,000.

This review also claims that because of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFEA) Act 2008 more unmarried and same sex couples would search surrogacy mothers as they now have the same rights to become parents as married couples.

In the words of obstetrician Celia Burrell, who co-authored the review, new guidelines were essential.

“We are calling for additional legislation and guidelines to prevent women and babies being exploited, provide safeguards for children and guide professionals.”

 

A Ban on Animal Testing for Cosmetics

The EU banned the sale of cosmetic products, which have firstly been tested on animals.

The news of this ban came on Monday. Until now, cosmetic companies were banned from tasting their products only in countries from the EU but the new one will prohibit testing ingredients anywhere in the world.

According to the new rules, companies will not be allowed to test on animals products, which may cause them different allergies and cancer.

Unfortunately in the words of German MEP Dagmar Roth-Behrendt due to a loophole in the ban companies will not stop testing products claiming they were for non-cosmetic purposes as for example for pharmacy.

No matter this view, groups taking care for animal rights assumed this ban as a victory.

Gavin Grant, from the RSPCA, said: “Animal testing in the name of beauty has never been acceptable. This landmark legislation at the end of a long campaign sends out a loud and clear message to other countries and those companies operating outside the EU.”

In the opinion of Troy Seidle, from the Humane Society International, the new ban changed the way people looked at certain products claiming they would not use shampoos or mascaras tested on rabbits.

The ban will not affect those products the ingredients of which were tested on animals before the ban started functioning.

Big companies including L’Oreal have taken the decision to stop selling products tested on animals as a step to stop this practice.

Of course, there are such people who did not like the idea.

According to Colin Mackey it would be difficult for Europe to have any access to new products, as there are no safe alternatives of animal testing.

“Europe’s idea is to put more pressure on other parts of the world to end animal testing, but the science doesn’t match that political timetable,” he said.

The Legal Stop guarantees our Legal Documents have not been tested on animals!