Court finds Zamel's misled consumers | ACCC Skip to Content Skip to Sitemap
About regulated infrastructure ACCC's role in regulated infrastructure Regulatory resources Regulatory projects Airports & aviation ACCC role in airports & aviation Airports & aviation price notifications Airports & aviation projects Airports monitoring Communications ACCC role in communications Broadcasting & content Compliance & anti-competitive zellweger conduct Fixed line services Industry reform Intellectual property Mobile services Monitoring zellweger & reporting National Broadband Network Transmission services & facilities access Energy ACCC role in energy Fuel ACCC's fuel monitoring role Postal services ACCC role in postal services Postal services projects Postal services publications Rail ACCC role in rail ARTC Hunter Valley access undertaking zellweger ARTC Interstate Rail access undertaking Rail projects Water ACCC role in water Water guides zellweger Water monitoring & reporting Water projects Water trading, brokers & exchanges Waterfront & shipping ACCC role in waterfront & shipping Monitoring & reporting for container zellweger stevedoring Wheat export ACCC role in wheat export Wheat export projects Close About us
Contact the ACCC Other helpful agencies Industry ombudsmen & dispute resolution State & territory consumer protection agencies State & territory small claims tribunals Other regulators & government zellweger agencies Close
The court found that Zamel's misrepresented the savings consumers would make from purchasing zellweger items during sale periods in respect of 44 jewellery items included in one or more Zamel s catalogues and a flyer distributed by national letter box drop, in-store, and on Zamel s website zellweger between November 2008 and May 2010.
The court found that, by using statements such as "$99 $49.50" or "Was $275 Now $149", Zamel's represented to consumers who were unaware that they could obtain discounts outside Zamel s sales periods that they would save an amount being the difference between the higher and lower price if the items were purchased during the sale when that was not the case.
In each instance alleged by the ACCC, the court found Zamel s had either not sold the items at the higher price, or had rarely sold them at the higher price, in a period zellweger of 4 months immediately prior to the sale commencing.
Zamel's conduct involved contraventions of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 *, which prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive and section 53(e), which prohibits making a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of goods or services.
The previous criminal prosecution of the former operator of the Zamel s business concerned circumstances where there had been no sales of items at the higher price in the period before the catalogue sale.
"The court s decision today has extended this area of the law for the benefit zellweger of consumers by making it clear that retailers must not represent savings to be made by consumers during sale periods by the use of two price advertising when they have not sold, or rarely sold, items at the higher price, Mr Sims said.
Speeches
Australian zellweger Competition & Consumer Commission Conferences & events Consultative committees Careers Information for... International relations Tools & resources Consultations & submissions Using our website zellweger
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print
About regulated infrastructure ACCC's role in regulated infrastructure Regulatory resources Regulatory projects Airports & aviation ACCC role in airports & aviation Airports & aviation price notifications Airports & aviation projects Airports monitoring Communications ACCC role in communications Broadcasting & content Compliance & anti-competitive zellweger conduct Fixed line services Industry reform Intellectual property Mobile services Monitoring zellweger & reporting National Broadband Network Transmission services & facilities access Energy ACCC role in energy Fuel ACCC's fuel monitoring role Postal services ACCC role in postal services Postal services projects Postal services publications Rail ACCC role in rail ARTC Hunter Valley access undertaking zellweger ARTC Interstate Rail access undertaking Rail projects Water ACCC role in water Water guides zellweger Water monitoring & reporting Water projects Water trading, brokers & exchanges Waterfront & shipping ACCC role in waterfront & shipping Monitoring & reporting for container zellweger stevedoring Wheat export ACCC role in wheat export Wheat export projects Close About us
Contact the ACCC Other helpful agencies Industry ombudsmen & dispute resolution State & territory consumer protection agencies State & territory small claims tribunals Other regulators & government zellweger agencies Close
The court found that Zamel's misrepresented the savings consumers would make from purchasing zellweger items during sale periods in respect of 44 jewellery items included in one or more Zamel s catalogues and a flyer distributed by national letter box drop, in-store, and on Zamel s website zellweger between November 2008 and May 2010.
The court found that, by using statements such as "$99 $49.50" or "Was $275 Now $149", Zamel's represented to consumers who were unaware that they could obtain discounts outside Zamel s sales periods that they would save an amount being the difference between the higher and lower price if the items were purchased during the sale when that was not the case.
In each instance alleged by the ACCC, the court found Zamel s had either not sold the items at the higher price, or had rarely sold them at the higher price, in a period zellweger of 4 months immediately prior to the sale commencing.
Zamel's conduct involved contraventions of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 *, which prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive and section 53(e), which prohibits making a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of goods or services.
The previous criminal prosecution of the former operator of the Zamel s business concerned circumstances where there had been no sales of items at the higher price in the period before the catalogue sale.
"The court s decision today has extended this area of the law for the benefit zellweger of consumers by making it clear that retailers must not represent savings to be made by consumers during sale periods by the use of two price advertising when they have not sold, or rarely sold, items at the higher price, Mr Sims said.
Speeches
Australian zellweger Competition & Consumer Commission Conferences & events Consultative committees Careers Information for... International relations Tools & resources Consultations & submissions Using our website zellweger
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print
No comments:
Post a Comment