Sought discounted tomatoes and will receive 20 thousand shekels: Shufersal did not honor a sale at the register and will compensate a customer

The Shufersal chain will pay 20,000 shekels in compensation to a customer who arrived to purchase cherry tomatoes on sale, after the branch refused to charge her at the register the low price listed on the sign, claiming that the variety she chose ('Lovelo') was not included in the sale. This was ruled recently by the Small Claims Court in Kfar Saba.

Judge Ofir Katbi-Rivlin added criticism of the chain's conduct to the verdict, after it emerged that in another case presented by the customer to the court, Shufersal advertised lower prices for blueberries and avocado in a promotional flyer and refused to honor them. "It seems that Shufersal lures its customers to come to its supermarket using a promotional SMS whose content is not honored, and also misleads them by posting price signs that do not match the much higher register price. Thus, the defendant rakes into its pocket significant sums of money from many consumers in complete contradiction to the provisions of the law," the judge wrote. Shufersal filed an appeal against the verdict today, Wednesday.

According to the verdict, the lawsuit claimed that on two occasions the Shufersal Universe branch in Kfar Saba committed consumer deception when it refused to honor a sale price presented on a sign and in the sale flyer, demanding a higher price at the register, and acted in an offensive and bad-faith manner towards the plaintiff.

In the first case, a sign above the cherry tomato display stated the price was 3.90 shekels. "To the plaintiff's astonishment, at the register she was required to pay 16.90 shekels, even after staff clarified that the sale did not apply to 'Lovelo' type tomatoes. It should be clarified that there was no exclusion on the sign regarding a specific type of cherry tomato. Only after the plaintiff complained was it added in handwriting on the sign that the sale does not include Lovelo type tomatoes," the verdict stated. The customer had contacted customer service, where she was offered only a small credit for the difference.

In the second case, following an SMS with a sale flyer, the plaintiff arrived at the branch to find that the prices for blueberries, avocado, and cherry tomatoes were higher than advertised. Employees claimed the flyer was invalid, though it was proven to be valid at the time.

"These are two clear cases where the consumer is required to pay a higher register price despite the publication of a discounted price," the court stated. "This is serious, unacceptable conduct, and the impression is that we are not dealing with a one-time glitch. It is reasonable to assume that most consumers will not bother themselves with filing a lawsuit for such small amounts." In its appeal, Shufersal claimed that the court ignored a significant defense argument regarding their offer to credit the customer for the price difference, and argued that the compensation ruling was an error.