The role of the lexical item in the comprehension of subject-verb agreement maliweb.net - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from maliweb.net Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Date Time
Jayco to pay $75,000 for misleading a consumer about consumer guarantee rights
The Federal Court has ordered caravan manufacturer Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd (Jayco) to pay a penalty of $75,000 for making a false or misleading representation to a consumer about their consumer guarantee rights, following court proceedings by the ACCC.
In November 2020, the Federal Court dismissed the majority of the ACCC’s case, including the allegation that Jayco acted unconscionably towards four consumers by denying them the right to refunds or replacements for their defective caravans. The Court, however, found that Jayco had misled one consumer by representing that they were only entitled to have their caravan repaired, when in fact a consumer’s rights under the Australian Consumer Law when there is a major failure also include a refund or replacement.
Caravan maker Jayco ordered to pay $75,000 penalty after misleading customer on refund rights
Popular caravan manufacturer Jayco has been ordered by the Federal Court to pay a penalty of $75,000 for misleading one consumer about their rights to a refund.
The court found that Jayco misled one consumer by representing that they were entitled to have their broken caravan fixed under consumer law.
In reality, the consumer was also entitled to a refund or a complete replacement.
READ MORE:
Jayco was taken to court by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), which alleged Jayco had acted unconscionably towards four consumers.
The court found that while the caravans bought by the four consumers were not of acceptable quality , Jayco only made a false or misleading representation to one of the consumers about their consumer guarantee rights under the Australian Consumer Law.
BY
Marija Mrvosevic ON 3 May 2021 6 min read
As influencer marketing only gains in popularity, it has become as important as ever to make sure they follow a certain set of guidelines. Influencers who market products on social media need to be transparent about sponsored posts and ads. Those who don’t comply are at risk of facing a penalty.
Marketing Mag has reached out to industry experts to look into the issues surrounding influencer advertising transparency and recent breaches of the code of ethics.
Last year the Australian Influencer Marketing Council (AIMCO) published its code of practice for Australian influencers, encouraging more ethical conduct in the industry. In February the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) released a code of ethics that treats influencers as any other traditional advertiser, encouraging them to “disclose commercial relationships in a clear, upfront manner that can be easily understood”.
Date Time
ACCC issues public warning notice about Postage Ink
The ACCC has issued a public warning notice about the conduct of Postage Ink Pty Limited in relation to the unsolicited supply of labels and ink cartridges and other consumables for postage meters to business customers.
The ACCC’s action follows complaints from businesses which use postage meters, also known as franking machines, and which had been contacted by Postage Ink in respect of unsolicited sales or payments.
In issuing the public warning notice, the ACCC has reasonable grounds to suspect that Postage Ink’s conduct in engaging in the supply of unsolicited goods by sending postage meter ink cartridges to businesses which had not ordered them, and subsequently seeking payment for the ink cartridges and other consumables for their postage meter, may breach the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).