Murrysville activist wins 2-cent lawsuit against Wal-Mart in sausage snafu
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, Sept. 29, 2011
The world's largest retailer found itself in court in Westmoreland County Thursday to defend a 2-cent discrepancy.
Wal-Mart claims the mix-up over the price of a pack of Banquet "Brown n Serve" sausage at its Delmont store was caused by new packaging.
But Murrysville consumer activist Mary Bach claims the overcharge was intentional and they occur far too often.
Export District Judge Charles Conway sided with Bach in her civil lawsuit alleging unfair trade practices. He awarded Bach $100 in damages, plus about $80 in court costs.
After the victory, Bach and her husband, Leonard, said the fight isn't over the money. They said the retail giant should be more diligent in ensuring that prices listed on store shelves match what prices scan at the register for customers.
"This is the fifth lawsuit we've had against this store for the same problem ... . This isn't an isolated incident," Mary Bach said.
Bach testified that on Aug. 20 she purchased the sausages, which had a posted price of 98 cents. But the store scanners erred, charging her $1 when she checked out.
"The clerk did everything right when I pointed out the error and refunded me the difference and noted the error," Bach said.
However, six days later, she went back to the store to purchase more of the same sausage. The shelf price was still 98 cents, but she was again charged $1, she testified.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.