1.1 Fair Trading Act 1986 A. GSK Ribena We can apply the provision as False or misleading representation that goods are of particular kind, standard, quality, grade, quantity, composition, style or model. As GlaxoSmithKline claims that their ready to drink Ribena Contains 7mg of vitamin C per 100ml but assume in the test they found there is no vitamin C found in the drink as it was a false representation where they found something wrong information about the product then GSK pleaded guilty to five charges to these claims where the commissions too found that there is no vitamin C is not contain in the product where it created a unfair practises, fault consumer information’s. As the commission argued with them about their misleading representation then they agreed to claim four times as they were guilty about this product misleading representation. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0121/latest/DLM96908.html Because this was a misleading representation where they did not show the actual detail of the product because it was a false statement about the product where it tells that the drink contain about 7mg of vitamin C per 100ml but there were no vitamin and it was like misleading consumers with false information. As these kinds of proceedings are initiated by the competitors as they needed the brand name to be corrupted. As they informed consumers that the product contain they have got vitamin C in their product and finally when it was known as a misleading representation then as they have breached the FTA, section 13 by creating an misleading statement about the product then they should pay the compensation for the commission. https://www.consumerbuild.org.nz/publish/legal/legal-other-pimsfair.php B. Buying Souvenirs a) Identify the Specific provision for Fair Trading Act 1986 which applies to a given fact situation. The specific provision for Fair Trading Act 1986 is making false or misleading representation concerning the place of origin of goods where the scenario clearly describe us that souvenir supplier sold soap and skincare products that is looked like which is made out of New Zealand’s products but actually they were made up from the ingredients which has been sourced from Malaysia, Indonesia and China also where the product has been manufactured in China. As the suppliers did not represent the real manufacturing place of origin instead they used that all the ingredients in the product is from New Zealand. Under section 13 of FTA they have breached the law where they shouldn’t do and they might have face of offending about their product and they pay their compensation to the relevant trader or consumers they can claim for the losses to the court from the trader. https://www.consumerbuild.org.nz/publish/legal/legal-other-pimsfair.php C) $79 Per night deal As the hotel advertised that the rooms are available for the price of $79 per night but they did not give any further details about the room but $79 rooms available only for a minimum 28 day stay in a studio room as this advertisement was announced that $79 price was for an apartment which has kitchen, laundry, and etc. so has this information was wrong so the provision of make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of any goods or services. Because the information they provided about the price was wrong where they have hidden some information regarding the price. Under section 13 of FTA they have breached the law where they have misleading representation about the product service. D) The genuine Chippendale suite The provision is applied to this scenario is make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of any goods or services. Regarding Alice bought a dining suite but where she assured it was a genuine Chippendale suite but some years later she got to know about the product which is remarkably good and where she asked her money back from the dealer. Under section 27 of FTA the dealer have breached the law where they have misleading representation about the product service where he can pay the compensation back to her but as she asked for the money back then the dealer can finish this issue with this or Alice may have to go to the court where it was a misleading representation and the dealer have to pay the compensation as well. Element 02 2.1 Consumer Guarantee Act 1993 A) We can apply the misleading conduct in relation to goods where no person shall, in trade, engage in conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, manufacturing process, and characteristic, suitability for a purpose or quantity of goods. Because Jeff trusted on the dealers and he bought a swimming pool which he thought it was a brand new but later after he fixed it in his place, he got to know that some parts of the pool has been reconditioned where he thought it was a new but not really where it causes damages later. If they find any failure of the good then they can reject the good and refund or obtain damage for the reduction of the value of good as compensation https://www.findlaw.co.nz/articles/4305/guarantees-and-remedies-in-the-consumer-guarantees.aspx Element 03
The main reason is because as the group Nine North Island agreed to a contract that assuming that they can cover up with each other covering the price with the dealers, and as they had competitive agreements then they had to held for meetings for years so therefore they had to claim up with on the price they should pay them because they compete against each other for livestock on the basis for price. They should not compete with each other for the price of the livestock where they clearly make harm for the market power where they agreed and decided to pay the farmers as a remedy. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0005/latest/DLM88263.html
whereas we found that they need to t was prevent other agents from advertising property guides, so they were threatening to boycott the property guide and once the target was allowed even as the issue being cancelled then they should pay an amount of $60,000 of penalty. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0005/latest/DLM88263.html
Where they agreed to stop offering car washes for free with $20 of purchase of petrol where they announced it as a discount but they agreed to stop it therefore they had to pay an amount of $1.175 million penalty on the three companies.
A professional writer will make a clear, mistake-free paper for you!Get help with your assigment
Please check your inbox
I'm Chatbot Amy :)
I can help you save hours on your homework. Let's start by finding a writer.Find Writer