Question

Savalot Shopping Centre Ltd (“SSC”) recently opened a new store in your city. SSC is a membership warehouse club: - this means customers must become a member before they can shop at SSC. As a new business in the area, SSC was keen to attract as many new members as possible so it started an advertising campaign.

The advertising campaign included a catalogue with the following wording at the top of the front page in large bold font:

Do you want to save $$$$ you know you do!!!!!!

Huge savings for all new members

Get a HUGE 25% off all products if you join right now! Today in fact! 30 todays only!

Memberships will go fast, first in best dressed. Be late be disappointed – memberships are limited

At the very bottom of the advertisement, there is additional wording in very small print which states:

“The 25% price reduction for new members only applies to the first $150.00 of items purchased. Fruit and vegetables excluded.”

Dess saw the advertisement flyer and picked it up. Dess thought he could save money by buying bulk supplies for his large family, however, he basically stopped reading at 25% discount and didn’t notice the fine print.

Dess didn’t want to miss out on the limited memberships, so he went to SSC the next day and paid a $10 monthly membership fee, signed some terms and conditions which he briefly glanced at, got his membership card and started shopping. Dess filled five trollies with bulk household items worth about $1200.00.

At the checkout, Dess is told that the 25% discount only applies to the first $100.00 of items purchased. Dess complained and was referred to Miss Strict, a “customer care representative”.

Miss Strict showed Dess the fine print in the advertisement. Dess got very angry and decided not to buy anything. Dess then asked Miss Strict to cancel his membership. However, Miss Strict reminded Dess he signed the terms and conditions which included the following term:

1. The Customer is not permitted to cancel the membership before the expiry of 12 months unless the customer pays a cancellation fee of $150.00.

Dess attempted to negotiate with Miss Strict arguing it was just ridiculous to have such small printing and this was an entirely unacceptable to charge $150 to cancel a $10 membership However, Miss Strict told Dess:

“This is your fault, you should have read the advertisement more carefully, and you indicated you read the terms and conditions by ticking this box and signing the terms and conditions. I think it is unreasonable you think you have grounds to complain.”

Dess stalks out of SSC and decided to lodge a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (“the ACCC”).

Required

Using the IRAC legal problem solving process give your conclusion on whether the ACCC have any grounds to start legal proceedings against “SSC” if Dess had purchased food for use in his café?

Answer 1

Issue : Dess took participation of the SSC wanting to make immense investment funds in his bill as promoted on the SSC list. Subsequent to turning into a part he understood that the investment funds were constrained to $100 and that some item ranges, for example, foods grown from the ground were excluded from the arrangement. When Dess chose to drop his participation and recover his underlying $10, he was informed that scratch-off would cost $150.

Rule : The ACL contains explicit restrictions of unjustifiable practices, for example, making bogus and misdirecting portrayals to a client. The SSC exploited the terms and conditions segment to adjust the underlying articulations made on the flyer. Subsequently bringing about the buyer, Dess, having a totally different encounter to what was advanced on the flyer.

Application : The SSC is required to guarantee precise and fair data in their flyers to shoppers. Any arrangements caused must to be respected as proposed else they will be viewed as bogus proclamations. In the event that any announcement has a prohibition or exemption that is legitimate -, for example, the products of the soil, at that point it ought to be signified with the utilization of an asterix (*) or a T&C (terms and conditions apply) as an approach to show that the offer is dependent upon certain distinctions. The SSC's damaged the General insurances laws of the ACL in the accompanying manners :

1. The flyer had proclamations announcing limits on 'all items', anyway this was not expected. At the base of the flyer was a reference in fine print that prohibited leafy foods from this arrangement. There was no documentation to demonstrate this announcement had any exemption conditions.

2. The flyer likewise suggested that the reserve funds reached out to all buys and not simply to the $150 recorded in the fine print. Once more, no documentations were given to show the confinement.

3. At the checkout counter, Dess was informed that just $100 was the degree of the investment funds - not by any means the $150 it said on the flyer. This was an obtrusively bogus portrayal by SSC as it didn't respect the responsibility that was made by it on the flyer.

The lock-in period for the participation and resulting crossing out charge were remembered for the terms and conditions page thus these once acknowledged by the purchaser were a piece of a lawful agreement between the two gatherings.

End : SSC purposely distorted substance on the flyer with no expectation of respecting the arrangements it had decided to draw in clients. Basically, it was an ensnarement utilizing deceptions. The buyer, Dess, made the correct move by housing a grumbling with the ACCC. The ACCC has abundant grounds (3 at any rate) to begin legitimate procedures against the merchant, SSC, for damaging the particular forbiddance against making bogus and distorting articulations to purchasers about merchandise and enterprises.

PLEASE LIKE MY ANSWER