Case detailB a c k
Article 6 1. (a)
Article 6 1. (d)
|Common name||Decision type||Court decision in appeal|
|Court||Cour d''Appel, chambre correctionnelle, Angers||Plaintiff(s)||Public prosecutor''s office, Association Force Ouvrière des Consommateurs, Union Fédérale des Consommateurs de la Sarthe (UFC 72)|
|Court translation||Court of Appeals, criminal chamber, Angers||Defendant(s)||A. Berramdane, SAS Monoprix Le Mans|
|Keywords||discounts, limited availability, misleading advertising|
+ Expand all
When a supermarket makes a promotional offer but cannot supply all the products announced in the promotion and under the conditions as specified in the advertisement, warning consumers of a supply problem and offering similar products as a replacement does not exclude the infringement on the prohibition on misleading commercial practices.
(1) Does informing consumers of a lack of availability of some products, part of a promotional offer, and offering similar products at the conditions set forth in the promotional offer, exclude an infringement of the prohibition on misleading commercial practices?
(1) The court rules that an incomplete sign at the entrance to the supermarket that warns the client of an "absence of supplies of some products" does not exclude as such the infringement on the prohibition on misleading commercial practices. Moreover, the general offer of "similar articles at the same price" is vague and without any guarantee. As this was not a case in which a force majeure event could be invoked, the manager should have checked the availability of the products. The manager is also considered to have lacked the necessary level of vigilance by not ensuring that the price reductions as announced in the promotional offer applied to all the products as announced.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The initial decision is confirmed and the appellant's appeal is dismissed.
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|There is no related cases for this case.|
|There is no Legal Literature for this case.|