Epsilon wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Epsilon wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> Epsilon wrote:
>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> That's the message in the TV ad. It mentions conditions, of
>>>>>> course. Still, a kid cannot front up to the ticket office, and buy a
>>>>>> ticket to wherever, for 1 dollar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't there a law against component pricing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/s53c.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the problem? See http://www.countrylink.info/promotions
>>>>> , " Kids can go a long way for a dollar".
>>>>
>>>> "Available in conjunction with one or more full-fare adult
>>>> passengers" The problem is that there is no service consisting of
>>>> transporting a
>>>> child anywhere for $1. Rather, there is a service consisting of
>>>> transporting both an adult and a child somewhere, and that is the
>>>> service that Countrylink are advertising. They cannot argue
>>>> otherwise, because they'd be arguing that they're advertising a
>>>> service that they don't provide, which would itself be a violation
>>>> the act. But they're only quoting a component of the price, being the
>>>> component attributable to the child. The usual small print or voice
>>>> over regarding terms and conditions doesn't help. They're required
>>>> to state prominently what the full cost will be.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, they can't do that either because it's a function of
>>>> where the destination is. But that doesn't let them off the hook.
>>>>
>>>> Now, one may argue that no one's likely to be misled by this
>>>> advertisement (though I think some children might), but that doesn't
>>>> mean Country Link don't have to obey the law.
>>>
>>> I think that you have misread the provision. It's very tightly
>>> written, and it does not apply in the situation of these train
>>> tickets.
>>
>> ---Text
>> (1) A corporation must not, in trade or commerce, in connection
>> with:
>> (a) the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a person
>> (the relevant person ); or
>>
>> (b) the promotion by any means of the supply of goods or services
>> to a person (the relevant person ) or of the use of goods or services
>> by a person (the relevant person );
>> ----
>>
>>
>> Are they promoting the supply of a service to a person?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> If you want to apply the provision in that way, it's promoting the
> supply of services to the adult by the offer of a $1 ticket for a child.
>
>> What is the service? The service is the transport of an adult and a
>> child somewhere on the Country Link network.
>
> Why read the provision as applying in that way? It's promoting the
> adult ticket by means of the $1 ticket for a child.\
If the advertisement said "Buy a full fare adult ticket, and for just an
extra dollar you can take a child with you," I'd have no objection. But
it doesn't. It clearly says that kids go anywhere for $1. You have to go
to the terms and conditions to discover that an adult must travel as well.
It would defeat the purpose of the section if you could simply argue
that you were promoting something other than what appears from the
advertisement.
>
>> To whom are they promoting the service? To the adult.
>>
>> ----Text
>> make a representation with respect to an amount that, if paid, would
>> constitute a part of the consideration for the supply of the goods or
>> services
>> ----
>>
>> Are they making such a representation? Yes - they're talking about $1.
>> Does it constitute part of the consideration. Yes.
>
> That's not the way I read it, and any ambiguity is resolved by giving
> the provision a restricted scope.
>
>> ---Text
>> unless the corporation also:
>> (c) specifies, in a prominent way and as a single figure, the
>> single price for the goods or services; and
>
> That's the crux of the matter. It's not a deal for the supply of
> particular services that have a single price, but the supply of two
> particular services.
Isn't that what component pricing is all about? You quote the price for
one component service, and not for the other, but the consumer is
required to buy both or neither.
For example, car advertisements routinely quoted prices exclusive of
dealer delivery charges. The consumer is purchasing a car, but were
required also to purchase a dealer delivery service, which wasn't
included in the headline price.
Sylvia. |