Así, en el caso ya antiguo de la SAP Santander 12-V-1993 se declaró probado que el establecimiento había vendido bajo precio de adquisición y se señalaba que "cuando la venta se acompaña de información relativa a que se trata de una oferta por razones especiales que revelan al consumidor la razón de la venta al precio en cuestión con signos de verosimilitud, la posibilidad decae y el precio competitivo aparece para él justificado” AC 1993, nº 1115 p 1785; se niega igualmente la infracción del art. 17 – venta a precio muy bajo de un aire acondicionado que se anuncia profusamente, SAP Alicante 5-XI-2007, Cendoj 03014370082007100344.
O sea que, siempre que la cantidad de producto ofrecida sea razonable en relación con la publicidad realizada, los empresarios deberían poder limitar – advirtiéndolo – el número de unidades que puede adquirir cada consumidor.Martin Weitzman demonstrated that rational hoarding by individual consumers in a shortage economy could lead to inefficient outcomes. The model’s intuition is fairly straightfor-ward. A “shortage” in a given market exists when the quantity demanded for a given good exceeds the quantity supplied. Under normal competitive conditions, price will rise until supply and demand equalize and the market “clears.” However, when a market is not clearing for some reason, such as when there is a state-mandated price ceiling on the relevant commodity, a queue or some other form of non-price rationing inevitably develops. In such a market, … Buyers of the good, …, pay the cash price but also incur an “effort” cost waiting in the queue. To defray some of this effort cost, buyers will elect to purchase larger quantities of the good in each transaction and, in the process, incur a “storage” cost in the time they hold the commodity prior to its consumption. The actual price that buyers “see” in a shortage economy is thus the cash price plus effort and storage costs. In other words, while the seller sees a subcompeti-tive price, the buyer in effect sees a higher price “as if” the market were clearing.Weitzman’s model shows how this divergence between the buyer’s “as if” price and the cash price the seller receives is potentially a source of inefficiency. When a consumer responds to a queue by purchasing larger quantities per transaction than he otherwise would if there were not a queue, he imposes an externality on other consumers by reducing the quantity even further below the competitive level and thereby lengthening the queue. A longer queue increases waiting costs, which in turn causes later consumers to buy an even larger quantity per transaction and to incur even greater storage costs. Weitzman calls this cycle, where each consumer’s individually rational hoarding activity imposes higher waiting and storage costs on other consumers, a “shortage syndrome.”… the non-productive search and storage costs associated with a non-clearing market can be avoided, as a second best solution, by prohibiting consumers from purchasing goods in such a market for the purpose of resale at a later time.