92 results, showing 41 to 60
As part of the settlement of proceedings NSD 314 of 2009 ACCC v Cardcall Pty Limited gotalk Limited provided a Variation to the s87B Undertaking given by it on 18 June 2008.
Undertaking to be extended by 12 months, Cardcall to undertaking live monitoring of calls to its call centre number 1300 663 570 number.
Cardcall to provide a report each month to the Chief Executive of gotalk on conduct of call centre operators in terms of compliance with Part V of the Act, accuracy and clarity of product information provided to consumers and action taken on complaints received.
Advertising templates to be reviewed by legal practitioner and any material changes proposed to receive advice on compliance of advertising material with the TPA.
Training of staff involved in preparation of Cardcall advertising material to impart specific awareness of the TPA and the orders made by the Federal Court on 22 May 2009.
On 10 June 2008, the ACCC accepted the undertaking of Kamthon Wangudom, a director of Toll Holdings Ltd ('Toll') and/or its related bodies corporate.
Under the undertaking, Kamthon Wangudom agrees to sell down any interest he has in Asciano Limited and thereafter maintain his independence from Asciano.
In addition, Kamthon Wangudom must immediately resign from all positions within Toll, and take no further part in the company if he ceases to meet the requisite standards of independence.
The undertaking is associated with the fifth variation, accepted by the ACCC on 18 April 2007, to the undertaking given by Toll to the ACCC on 11 March 2006.
The fifth variation relates to Toll's restructure of its group businesses by way of scheme of arrangement to create a new listed entity and trust, Asciano.
The ACCC's decision to consent to the fifth variation is given effect through the following documents:
a variation to Toll's undertakings
a new undertaking from Asciano Ltd, and
new undertakings from the directors of Toll and Asciano.
A copy of those documents can be viewed on the ACCC's website.
On 10 June 2008, the ACCC accepted the undertaking of Iain Kinnear, a director of Toll Holdings Ltd ('Toll') and/or its related bodies corporate.
Under the undertaking, Iain Kinnear agrees to sell down any interest he has in Asciano Limited and thereafter maintain his independence from Asciano.
In addition, Iain Kinnear must immediately resign from all positions within Toll, and take no further part in the company if he ceases to meet the requisite standards of independence.
The undertaking is associated with the fifth variation, accepted by the ACCC on 18 April 2007, to the undertaking given by Toll to the ACCC on 11 March 2006.
The fifth variation relates to Toll's restructure of its group businesses by way of scheme of arrangement to create a new listed entity and trust, Asciano.
The ACCC's decision to consent to the fifth variation is given effect through the following documents:
a variation to Toll's undertakings;
a new undertaking from Asciano Ltd; and
new undertakings from the directors of Toll and Asciano.
A copy of those documents can be viewed on the ACCC's website.
On 10 June 2008, the ACCC accepted the undertaking of Vincent Heng Wee Phang, a director of Toll Holdings Ltd ('Toll') and/or its related bodies corporate.
Under the undertaking, Vincent Heng Wee Phang agrees to sell down any interest he has in Asciano Limited and thereafter maintain his independence from Asciano.
In addition, Vincent Heng Wee Phang must immediately resign from all positions within Toll, and take no further part in the company if he ceases to meet the requisite standards of independence.
The undertaking is associated with the fifth variation, accepted by the ACCC on 18 April 2007, to the undertaking given by Toll to the ACCC on 11 March 2006.
The fifth variation relates to Toll's restructure of its group businesses by way of scheme of arrangement to create a new listed entity and trust, Asciano.
The ACCC's decision to consent to the fifth variation is given effect through the following documents:
a variation to Toll's undertakings;
a new undertaking from Asciano Ltd; and
new undertakings from the directors of Toll and Asciano.
A copy of those documents can be viewed on the ACCC's website.
The ACCC has accepted court enforceable undertakings from Scamonte Ventures Pty Ltd trading as Scalzi Produce WA (Scalzi Produce) for breaches of the Horticulture Code of Conduct (Code), a mandatory industry code under the Trade Practices Act 1974.
Scalzi Produce:
traded as an agent without having Code compliant Horticultural Produce Agreements in place with the growers it has traded with; and
traded as an agent without preparing, publishing or making publicly available a document that complied with the Code which sets out the general terms and conditions under which they would trade with growers of horticultural produce (terms of trade).
Scalzi Produce has acknowledged it has contravened the Code and section 51AD of the Act.
On 3 June 2008, the ACCC accepted the undertaking of Toll Holdings Ltd (‘Toll’).
Under the undertaking, Toll agrees that Mr Nolan Fernandez will be employed by Toll IPEC as a major account manager and will not, during the term of the Toll undertakings (originally accepted on 11 March 2006), be transferred or promoted to any other position within Toll IPEC, Toll or its related bodies corporate without the ACCC's prior written approval.
The undertaking relates to the ACCC’s approval of Toll’s employment of Mr Fernandez, pursuant to clause 2.9(f) of the undertaking given by Toll to the ACCC on 11 March 2006, as varied on 18 April 2007.
Toll’s undertaking dated 11 March 2006 and the variation to that undertaking which was accepted by the ACCC on 18 April 2007, being the fifth variation to that undertaking, can be viewed on the ACCC’s website.
On 3 June 2008, the ACCC accepted the undertaking of Mr Nolan Fernandez.
Under the undertaking, Mr Fernandez agrees that he will not deploy in favour of Toll IPEC, Toll or its related bodies corporate any confidential information obtained by Mr Fernandez during the course of his employment with Pacific National Limited.
The undertaking relates to the ACCC’s approval of Toll’s employment of Mr Fernandez, pursuant to clause 2.9(f) of the undertaking given by Toll to the ACCC on 11 March 2006, as varied on 18 April 2007.
Toll’s undertaking dated 11 March 2006 and the variation to that undertaking which was accepted by the ACCC on 18 April 2007, being the fifth variation to that undertaking, can be viewed on the ACCC’s website.
On 3 June 2008, the ACCC accepted a variation to the undertakings given by Toll Holdings Limited (‘Toll’) to the ACCC on 11 March 2006 (‘the Toll undertakings’).
This variation constitutes the seventh variation to the Toll undertakings and relates to Toll’s acquisition of a controlling interest in BALtrans Holdings Limited (‘BALtrans’).
The variation:
exempts Toll from specified obligations in respect of directors of BALtrans or a BALtrans Subsidiary who are not Australian residents; and
imposes additional obligations upon Toll with regard to declarations of independence made by those directors.
The ACCC has accepted court enforceable undertakings from Brimcove Pty Ltd trading as Etherington (Etherington) for breaches of the Horticulture Code of Conduct (Code), a mandatory industry code under the Trade Practices Act 1974.
Etherington:
traded as a merchant without having Code compliant Horticultural Produce Agreements in place with the growers it has traded with; and
traded as a merchant without preparing, publishing or making publicly available a document that complied with the Code which sets out the general terms and conditions under which they would trade with growers of horticultural produce (terms of trade).
Ehterington has acknowledged it has contravened the Code and section 51AD of the Act.
Hoover Floorcare Asia Pacific Pty Ltd (Hoover) is a national importer and distributor of Hoover vacuum cleaner products which it supplies to retailers throughout Australia.
Between 2004 and 2007, Hoover made alleged misrepresentations in various mediums about two of its products, by claiming;
the Powerforce H5003 Vacuum cleaner had “2200 watts maximum cleaning power” when the Powerforce was only able to achieve 2,000 watts; and
the Hoover Handivac JVC 2026 hand held vacuum cleaner had a power output of 12 volts or 9 volts when the Handivac contains a 6 volt battery.
Hoover has acknowledged that the represented power outputs were not able to be obtained, and that it has engaged in conduct that was potentially misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA).
The ACCC has accepted undertakings from Hoover pursuant to section 87B of the TPA to address the conduct.
Hoover has undertaken that it will:
only make a representation about the power output of its vacuum cleaners where that representation is correct and can be verified;
include extra attachments if needed to achieve the represented power output or indicate prominently that they are not included;
discontinue distributing publishing material that misrepresents the power output of the two products;
request that retailers display a notice in their stores regarding the conduct;
cause to publish an information notice, once, regarding the conduct in the Weekend Australian newspaper and on the Hoover website; and
establish a compliance program to assist Hoover in preventing future breaches of the TPA.
Godfreys Franchise Systems Pty Ltd (Godfreys) is a franchisor and a retailer of vacuum cleaner and cleaning products with franchised stores throughout Australia and New Zealand.
In 2007, Godfreys promoted a Nilfisk A100 vacuum cleaner (Nilfisk vacuum cleaner) which was new to the Australian market and a model exclusively sold by Godfreys.
Thompsons of Shepparton Pty Ltd (ACN 102 901 075), trading as Thompson Motor Group (Thompsons), is a retailer of new and used automotive vehicles, parts and accessories as well as a mechanical repair service.
From 27 September 2007 until 17 November 2007 Thompsons represented in a television advertisement on the Price Television Network that:
Video Ezy has given a court enforceable undertaking under section 87B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 to the ACCC, after it raised concern that the overall impression created by "price guarantees” in its television advertisements were likely to have breached section 52 and 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
In October 2007, Video Ezy changed its television commercials to include the statement "Cheapest price in Australia, guaranteed”, which featured prominently in its advertisements.
This statement was either qualified in fine print by “Or we’ll beat any lower advertised price” (the “qualification”), or not at all.
Kerandis Proprietary Limited operates 3 furniture retail outlets in Melbourne under the name of Urban Rhythm Furniture.
In the course of a store-wide Christmas promotion in December 2007, Kerandis offered all the furniture items in its stores at a 12% discount using comparative (strike through) two-price representations.
These representations were in the form of price comparisons such as “$2,240 $1795” where items were offered at a price which was compared to a previous crossed out higher selling price.
In the course of the Christmas promotion, Kerandis introduced new items into its stores which had never previously been sold by Kerandis and immediately offered them at a discount using comparative two-price representations.
Kerandis acknowledged that it had used comparative two-price representations in this manner in past sales.
Alco Battery Sales (Aust) Pty Limited is an importer and distributor of batteries for various applications including the Fullriver DCG Series batteries (the Products) which are represented as gel batteries.
The Products are imported from the manufacturer, Fullriver Battery Manufacture Co.
Chelsea Girl Pty Ltd the business that operates Chelsea stores in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland has offered a section 87B court enforceable undertaking to the ACCC following its supply to consumers of sunglasses that failed to comply with the mandatory consumer product safety standard prescribed under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the Act), namely AS/NZS 1067:2003 Sunglasses and fashion spectacles (the Standard).
Specifically, Chelsea supplied sunglasses that, despite including a swing tag that represented the sunglasses had been tested to meet Australian standards, failed to include the lens category number and the corresponding lens category description required by the Standard.
Subsequent to the ACCC raising its concerns with Chelsea in December 2007, Chelsea acted promptly, including immediately organising staff training on the Standard and subsequently conducting a voluntary product recall of five styles of Chelsea sunglasses on 16 February 2008 that were found to have failed the performance requirements of the Standard.
Chelsea admitted it did not comply with the labelling requirements and subsequently the performance requirements of the Standard in contravention of s65C of the Act and acknowledged it may have also contravened ss52, 53(a) and 55 of the Act.
In resolution of the matter, Chelsea has undertaken to:
ensure sunglasses supplied by it that are subject to a mandatory safety and/or information standard prescribed under the Act comply with the relevant standard;
put in place procedures to ensure display and sales stock of sunglasses are appropriately labelled; and
implement a trade practices compliance program to minimise the risk of future breaches of Part V, including sections 52, 53(a), 55, 65C & 65D of the Act.
The ACCC has accepted court enforceable undertakings from Karragullen Cool Storage Pty Ltd (Karragullen) for breaches of the Horticulture Code of Conduct (Code), a mandatory industry code under the Trade Practices Act 1974.
Karragullen:
traded as a merchant without having Code compliant Horticultural Produce Agreements in place with the growers it has traded with;
traded as a merchant without preparing, publishing or making publicly available a document setting out the general terms and conditions under which they would trade with growers of horticultural produce (terms of trade); and
traded as a grower without having Code compliant Horticultural Produce Agreements in place with the merchants it has traded with.
Karragullen has acknowledged it has contravened the Code and section 51AD of the Act.
Harvey Fresh is incorporated in Western Australia and carries on business as a manufacturer and distributor of Harvey Fresh fruit juice and dairy products.
Between January 2008 and March 2008, Harvey Fresh manufactured and distributed a 250ml Apple & Blackcurrant Fruit Juice product (Product) with labelling displaying the following representations:
‘100% JUICE’;
‘APPLE & BLACKCURRANT’; and
in smaller font on the side of the label ‘INGREDIENTS: AUSTRALIAN APPLE CONCENTRATE, BLACKCURRANT FLAVOUR, GRAPE SKIN EXTRACT, COLOUR 466’.
The ACCC believes that the use of the ‘100% Juice’ wording on the label of the Product indicates that the juice contains 100% of the respective characterising ingredient, that is apple and blackcurrant juice.
The ACCC is concerned that where flavourings, colours or extracts have been added to the Product, the ‘100% juice’ claim may potentially mislead consumers who believe the Product is 100% fruit juice in its composition.
Harvey Fresh has acknowledged the ACCC’s concerns that its conduct may have misled consumers and that such conduct may have been in contravention of sections 52 and 53(a) of the TPA.
Harvey Fresh has cooperated with the ACCC and the ACCC has accepted undertakings from Harvey Fresh pursuant to section 87B of the TPA to address the conduct.
Harvey Fresh has undertaken that it:
will not make a representation that a fruit juice product contains 100% juice, when the product does not contain 100% juice;
will contact all retail customers to which it has supplied the Product to inform them of the conduct and recall all units of the Product that it has supplied to them;
will publish an information notice on its website for a period of 30 days informing consumers about the conduct; and
it will implement and maintain a Trade Practices Compliance Program for the purpose of ensuring that the officers and employees of Harvey Fresh are aware of their responsibilities and obligations under sections 52 and 53 of the TPA.
Laura Ashley (Australia) Pty Ltd (LA) sells home furnishings, women's fashion, made to measure goods and design consultancy services.
LA has acknowledged its previous two-price advertising of bed linen may have contravened sections 52 and 53(e) of the TPA.
LA's conduct involved a promotional strategy based on establishing a 'regular price' for a product line by launching the product in a limited number of stores for a limited time.
Subsequent supply to all other stores Australia-wide and subsequent discounts all relied on the 'regular price' as the starting point for any discounts or sales.
Paris Miki Australia Pty Limited which operates the Paris Miki optical stores across Australia has offered a section 87B court enforceable undertaking to the ACCC following its supply to consumers of sunglasses that failed to comply with the labelling requirements of the mandatory consumer product safety standard prescribed under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the Act), namely AS/NZS 1067:2003 Sunglasses and fashion spectacles (the Standard).
Specifically, Paris Miki supplied various brands of sunglasses some of which contained no labelling and accordingly were deficient of information as to the lens category number, the corresponding lens category description and the manufacturer or supplier’s identification required under the Standard.
No results found
No results found