Sylvia Else wrote:
> 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.
That may be a problem with the tv ad. I haven't seen it, only the material
on the website, which is clear enough. The problem with such tv ads is more
apparent than real. If they mention that the $1 kid's ticket is subject to
conditions, as you say it does, then the customer must check the conditions.
The provision strikes at certain pricing arrangements that hide the real
price of goods or services. It isn't aimed at the type of arrangement being
offered by CountryLink, in my view.
>>> 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.
I don't see the arrangement as "component pricing".
> 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.
Yes, that's a deal for particular goods where there are additional cost
items tacked on to the advertised price for those particular goods. That
isn't the case here. There is a price for the adult ticket, which is not in
question. There is then the offer of a $1 additional ticket if the adult
wants to take it, subject to conditions. I don't see the problem. The
situation regarding the car is objectionable, because the real total cost is
hidden, usually in the small print, but the situation regarding the kid's
ticket seems fair enough to me.
|
266497. Re: Grocery website quietly checks out
266497266498. Re: Grocery website quietly checks out
266498266499. Re: TURCAUD BATH as free gift to suffering Humanity RIGHT ON LINE
26266500. Re: Grocery website quietly checks out
266500266501. Re: TURCAUD BATH as free gift to suffering Humanity RIGHT ON LINE
26266502. Re: Penny Wong and Julia Gillard , very strong women indeed , Take
266506. In some areas, water in the Australian River Murray Lakes and Coorong266507. Re: In some areas, water in the Australian River Murray Lakes and
26266510. Re: In some areas, water in the Australian River Murray Lakes and
2266515. Re: selling something obviously fake
266515266527. Kartan stone tools add to evidence of ancient phonetician mining
2266532. Re: %^- muzlim cartoon character muhammad was a child molester and
266541. Re: In some areas, water in the Australian River Murray Lakes and
26266545. Re: TURCAUD BATH as free gift to suffering Humanity RIGHT ON LINE
26266547. Re: Kartan stone tools add to evidence of ancient phonetician mining 266550. Re: selling something obviously fake
266550266551. Re: TURCAUD BATH as free gift to suffering Humanity RIGHT ON LINE
26266552. Re: In some areas, water in the Australian River Murray Lakes and
2266553. Re: Penny Wong and Julia Gillard , very strong women indeed , Take
266554. Re: In some areas, water in the Australian River Murray Lakes and
2 |
|
|