Interestingly, they still followed the law that requires you to show the lowest price in 30 days which was the same as the sale price. Their argument is that the law doesn’t say that they can’t base the discount on some other, higher price.
Which does kinda have a point - if you had to base it on that price, if you have e.g a summer sale that lasts two months, after 30 days that sale price is now the lowest price and the sale would “disappear”, even if for the other 10 months you’d be selling it for a higher price.
So what’s the situation if you have a one week sale, one week normal price, then another sale - 30 day lowest price is the same, but the discount is valid too?
Interestingly, they still followed the law that requires you to show the lowest price in 30 days which was the same as the sale price. Their argument is that the law doesn’t say that they can’t base the discount on some other, higher price.
Which does kinda have a point - if you had to base it on that price, if you have e.g a summer sale that lasts two months, after 30 days that sale price is now the lowest price and the sale would “disappear”, even if for the other 10 months you’d be selling it for a higher price.
So what’s the situation if you have a one week sale, one week normal price, then another sale - 30 day lowest price is the same, but the discount is valid too?