Consumer legislation to given fact situation - Free Essay Example

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 informationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢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. ht tps://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 Zealandà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢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 shouldnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢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 ap plied 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 characteristi c, 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 provision we can apply here is Practises substantially lessening competition section 27 Contracts, Arrangements or understandings substantially lessening competition prohibited, also certain provisions of contracts, etc. with respect to prices deemed to substantially lessen competition under price fixing. 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 Here we apply the provision section 34 Certain provisions of covenants with respect to prices deemed to substantially lessen competition of commerce act 1996. 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 The provision section restrictive trade practices substantially lessening competition. 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. The provision section restrictive trade practices substantially lessening competition, where the bus company breached the commercial act by having contact and discussing with another bus company, so they have to pay an amount of $380,000 amount of penalty on the offending bus company and $10,000 to the chief executive. As they have breached out the section 27 and section 30 under the commercial act by they had used its dominant position to prevent a rival company because they need to tow services where its pilots were not used to so as the remedy they has to pay $500,000 penalty . In this scenario the provision needed to apply is commerce act 1996 under section 29 Contracts, arrangements, or understandings containing exclusionary provisions prohibited Subject to subsection (1A), for the purposes of this Act, a provision of a contract, arrangement, or understanding is an exclusionary provision if where the because of an anti-competitive purpose the building has opened in south island market for the supply where they are there to the aim of rival company from competing in the market where they needed to eliminate other companies from the competition, therefore as a penalty they were fined $525,000 from the company for this act. In this case I would like to apply section 37 resale price maintenance by suppliers prohibited, no person shall engage in the practise of resale price maintenance under commercial act 1986, because the brewery tried to prevent a tavern from selling packs of beer at less than the price which has been recommend in retail price where he had attempted to induce the tavern not to sell the packs of beer for $15, therefore as a penalty has been fines an amount of $110,000 plus $5000 where it cost on the brewery. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0005/latest/DLM88290.html The provision should be apply to this scenario is section 36 taking advantage of market power under commercial act 1986 Nothing in this section applies to any practice or conduct to which this Part applies that has been authorised under Part 5. Where the bed manufacturer forced or assuming him to stop discounting beds, where he face to an penalty as a result from the high commission court on amount on $30,000. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0005/latest/DLM88281.html