Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Ascot Four Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1295
- Court considers the representations conveyed by a strike-through price.
In this similar decision, "Zamel's" was found guilty of 11 offences concerning false or misleading representation about the price of certain items of jewellery in the Christmas catalogue, contrary to section 75AZC(1)(g) of the Trade Practices Act. In each instance, by means of a strikethrough price, the defendant had represented that a particular item of jewellery had been sold at that price, or that the purchase of that item of particular jewellery during the sale period would result in a saving to the purchaser of the difference between the price as specified in the Christmas catalogue (the sale price), and the strike-through price.
Zamels, however, had not sold any of the 11 jewellery items specified in each of the 11 counts respectively for the strike-through price.
Justice Mansfield thought that in substance the issue was a straightforward one: it is whether the content of the Christmas sale catalogue, as relevant to the 11 counts, and in all the circumstances, conveys or would convey to ordinary or reasonable members of the public who may seek to acquire the 11 jewellery items from the defendant either of the two representations.
He noted that the purpose of the catalogue was to encourage the purchase of the 11 jewellery items at the catalogue sale price, by representing to the consumer or potential consumer that, during the sale period, the consumer would be saving a difference between the catalogue sale price and the strike-through price. The court also thought that ordinary or reasonable members of the classes of prospective purchasers of the 11 jewellery items would understand the relevant contents of the Christmas catalogue as conveying a misleading representation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.