ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Australian Regulatory Compliance Review

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

International Law

: Australian Regulatory Compliance Review

Misleading advertising: Prouds was/now ads unlawful

ADVERTISEMENTS

In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prouds Jewellers Pty Ltd  [2008] FCA 75 the Federal Court held that 'Was/Now' discount advertising by Prouds Jewellers Pty Ltd was misleading in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

The advertising of certain jewellery was in the form of price comparisons such as 'Was $199 / Now $99.50' and appeared in Prouds' February 2006 Summer of Love catalogue and its May 2006 Love You Mum catalogue. The case related to the 'Was/Now' price advertising of 17 items that appeared in both catalogues.

Justice Moore concluded that the 'Was/Now' advertising conveyed to consumers that the jewellery items had been offered for sale for a reasonable period immediately before the catalogue promotion at the 'Was' price. He also observed that: "The difference between those two ['Was/Now'] prices would be seen by the hypothetical consumer as the savings that would be achieved by him or her by purchasing an item during the sale period."

Justice Moore found that each of the 17 items had not in fact been offered at the 'Was' price in that period and concluded that the 'Was/Now' advertising of each of the items in both catalogues was misleading.

The contravening conduct of Prouds flows from the fact that goods offered for sale in the context of dual pricing, were not offered for sale at the "was" price in the period immediately before the sale. In my opinion there would be no contravention of the Act (and assuming continued use of the dual pricing promotion manifest in the two catalogues considered in this case) if the goods had been offered for sale at the "was" price for a period of two months preceding the sale period. While there can be no precision about the length of the anterior period, it must represent a period of substance in which the price the goods were offered for sale at the "was" price and, negotiated discounts aside, would have been purchased at that price. If the period was unduly short, then the publication of the "was" price in the context of dual pricing would remain misleading or deceptive. 

Prouds consented to implementing a trade practices compliance program.

Full post as published by Australian Regulatory Compliance Review on February 23, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0155 secs (new cache)