1 Briefly describe the nature of TPG’s advertising which
ACCC considered to be defective [3 marks]
2 What statutory provisions did ACCC allege that TPG’s
advertising contravened [2 marks]
3 What were the findings (conclusions) of the primary judge
about the following aspects of the advertising [3 marks total] bundling the set
up fee single price
4 What were the differences between the approach of the Full
Court and the approach of the primary judge in evaluating whether the TPG
advertising was misleading? [2 marks]
5 The High Court concluded that the approach taken by the
Full Court was not correct. For what reason or reasons did the High Court come
to this conclusion? [2 marks]
6 The Full Court, in coming to its conclusions, applied as a
precedent the ratio in a case called Parkdale Custom Built Furniture v Puxu
(“Puxu”). The High Court said that the Full Court wrongly applied the precedent
in Puxu. Explain in what ways the High Court thought the advertising in Puxu
was different from the TPG advertising and so should not have been used by the
Full Court as a precedent. [2 marks]
7 What did the High Court say about the assumed level of
knowledge in TPG’s target audience? [2 marks]
8 Is an intention to mislead essential for advertising to be
misleading? [1 mark]
9 If you were employed in the marketing section of an
internet service provider or a fitness centre which was about to launch an
advertising campaign promoting an attractive “plan” for membership in which
there were several “parts” (costs and benefits) to be taken into account by
potential customers, what advice would you give about the form of the
advertising, based on your understanding of the High Court’s ruling in ACCC v
TPG? [3 marks]
0 comments:
Post a Comment