By Craig Nelson - 11 Sep 2014
Fancy a carpet with lifetime stain and soil resistance? How
about one that won't fade for 25 years? Sounds great, but as usual,
the devil is in the detail.
Advertisers are having to rethink how they qualify their claims
following the recent Court of Appeal decision in
Godfrey Hirst v Cavalier Bremworth. The decision could have far
reaching implications for all advertisers.
Advertisers who promote warranties or make 'headline' claims to
which qualifications or exclusions apply will be especially
affected. This could affect, for example, those advertising in the
flooring, electronics, whiteware and automobile
industries.
Because the case dealt with wide reaching principles about what
constitutes misleading advertising, the Commerce Commission joined
the court proceedings and made submissions. The Commission will
likely use the decision in this case as a basis to assess carpet
advertising across the industry. However, the decision has broader
application beyond just carpet and we expect the Commission will in
time apply it to all advertisers.
Taking a proactive approach and having adverts checked by
experienced lawyers can save time, money … and an unwelcome letter
from the Commerce Commission.
Craig Nelson is a specialist in sales and marketing law. He has
produced a more detailed
report on misleading carpet ads and is available to assist with
any online or offline advertising review.
Related articles
The Commerce Commission's media release: Court ruling a win for consumer rights and
reminder to traders
stuff.co.nz: Small-print ruling 'win for consumers'