Case detailB a c k
Article 5 2.
Article 6 1.
Article 7 1.
Article 13 al1
|National ID||Administratīvās rajona tiesas spriedums lietā Nr.A42619409|
|Common name||Decision type||Court decision, first degree|
|Court||Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Rīga)||Plaintiff(s)||SIA “SIBUS”|
|Court translation||District Court of Administrative Cases (Riga)||Defendant(s)||Consumer Rights Protection Centre|
|Keywords||advertisement, commercial offer, discounts, information requirements, price reductions|
+ Expand all
A promotional action can fall within the scope of unfair commercial practices, even when several products are sold in accordance with the specifications of the offer and no complaints from consumers were reported.
The plaintiff posted information on the internet offering discounts up to 100 LVL to trips to Lapland until 15 October 2008 and a discount up to 20% for several other travel destinations offered.
According to the Consumer Rights Protection Centre (CRPC), the actions of the plaintiff were in violation of fair commercial practices.
The plaintiff appealed the CRPC decision arguing that several products were sold to clients with a discount up to 100 LVL and there had been no more requests for the product, therefore the offer was not misleading. Furthermore, the defendant had not presented a single complaint of the plaintiff’s actions regarding this offer.
Can a promotional action fall within the scope of unfair commercial practices, even when several products are sold in accordance with the specifications of the offer and no complaints from consumers were reported?
The court first considered that the plaintiff did not specify the period of validity of the offer. The court then stated that consumers could receive the discount up to 100 LVL only if the tour was booked for 4 travellers and consumers could receive the 20% discount only until 15 September 2008, which boiled down to additional requirements not mentioned in the advertisement.
Since the additional criteria were not specified in the promotional material, it was held by the court that the statements of the plaintiff were misleading.
The court also found that a trader’s statement of an opportunity to receive discounts up to 100 LVL or 20%, means that an opportunity for consumers to receive the maximum discount has to be provided.
Furthermore, requirements for receiving the discount have to be clearly understandable in the statement of the trader. Otherwise the statement itself encourages the consumers to make economically unfavourable decisions.
As a result, the court concluded that the commercial practice was misleading, even though the advertised amounts of discounts were granted (upon compliance with the additional requirements), and although no complaints from consumers were reported.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The claims were 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.|