I don't want to derail the thread but to blatantly say "Wrong," by merely a quick google does not make you right. You may, in fact, be correct, but the cases I know of lead me to believe that thi is not as clear cut as you think. Notice how the web link you provided doesn't actually talk about legal rights or provide any citation to the UCC Article 2. It merely mentions talking to employees, managers, and corporate. That sounds like trying to make a scene in order to have them give it to you to avoid a lost customer, not because they legally have to.
To require you to pay anything more may violate advertising laws and can result in fines from state and local entities.
So what should you do if you are charged the wrong price?
- Explain the price discrepancy to the cashier.
- If denied, explain the price discrepancy to the manager.
- Provide evidence, such as an advertisement, coupon or price tag.
- Verify that the evidence matches the item. You may need to compare UPC numbers.
- If still overcharged, send evidence and a polite letter to corporate headquarters.
Notice how this doesn't talk about your legal rights. The one agency they want you to contact is to avoid being overcharged.
If there is an explicit coupon or advertisement, you are most certainly correct, the law is well settled on that point. See Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., 251 Minn. 188, 192, 86 N.W.2d 689, 691 (1957) (discussing the advertisement constituted a valid offer).
As an example, take the following case. Some guy sued Pepsi because he wanted a harrier jet. They had an advertisement that offered to give away a harrier jet for something like 7,000,000 points. He read the terms and purchased points for 0.10 each, spending $700,000 and was denied the jet, so he sued. Think he was entitled to the jet? WRONG. He was not to be entitled to the deal because it was unreasonable to think that. Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 210 F.3d 88, 89 (2d Cir. 2000).
However, as was said by some member earlier, it really depends on the reasonableness of the pricing error. I think that particular item would be a close call. Marshall's lists the "retail" value of the item. If they mismarked what the original "retail" offer was and marked it down from that number, I would posit to you that it would be unreasonable to expect to get the item for that price if the "retail" of the item was also mismarked.
Now, I am no expert and not a lawyer. I also have no idea whether some provision of the UCC could be successfully argued. You might be absolutely right, but please back it up with the law and not some blog post while calling me wrong in the condescending manner.
Move this to PM if you feel the desire to discuss further.