2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission
2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission 2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission
Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/01/04/BC-FTD/022011/01/04/BC-FTD/032011/01/04/BC-FTD/04ComplaintagainstProduct AConsumer Bvs. Company DConsumer Cvs. Company EOn 04-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Organisation X,regarding the misleading labeling of Product A, imported by Company C.Once the complaint was received, the Commission wrote to Company Cinforming them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived, informing FCC that, the product used artificial flavoring which wasclearly stated in the ingredients list and there was no beef or chickenpresent in the product. The same was verified by the Commission. Theabove was relayed to Organisation X and the case was closed by FCC.On 04-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Bagainst Company D. In the complaint, the customer alleged that CompanyD was selling substandard quality footwear. The Commission made itsassessment on the issue and with a letter informed the complainant thatthe footwear did not have any express warranty and the durability of it wasbased on the nature and manner of usage. Based on the above, the casewas closed.On 04-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer C,regarding the increase of uniform prices, due to the increase in VAT from12.5 % to 15 %. Upon the receipt of the complaint, the Commissioninspectors carried out field inspections and monitoring of all the uniformand book shops, which were exempted from VAT till 28-02-11 to ensurethat fair prices were charged to the consumers. The complainant wasinformed of the same and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesProvisionsBreachedSections – 75 & 76Sections 77 &114Section 76Page13of236
Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/01/06/BC-FTD/062011/01/07/BC-FTD/07Consumer Dvs. Company FConsumer Evs. Company GOn 6-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Dagainst Company F. The Complainant informed FCC that he bought a pairof shock absorbers from the respondent company and after installing theparts and using the vehicle for almost two weeks; one of the shockabsorbers broke. FCC conducted mediation where both the parties came toan agreement and the respondent offered to give a replacement shockabsorber at a subsidized cost of $35. The transaction was completed and asettlement agreement was signed.On 07-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Eagainst Company G. The Complainant informed FCC that on 22-12-10, hewent to Company G’s shop in Suva and requested to the salesperson thathe wanted to purchase a mobile phone which supports MP3 playback. Afterpurchasing an Alcatel 305, he was advised by the same salesperson topurchase a memory card from Company H in order to upload and playsongs. After purchasing the memory card from Company H, he was advisedby a Company H staff member that the said phone could not support MP3or be used as a music player. Once the complaint was received, FCC wroteto Company G, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, requesting the complainant to see the retailManager to get a redress. FCC followed-up with the complainant and wasinformed that the memory card was formatted and it was functioningproperly. The matter was closed after the successful mediation.No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 77Page14of236
- Page 2: LETTER TO THE MINISTERHonorable Aiy
- Page 9 and 10: 5. Legal DepartmentThe department
- Page 11 and 12: 1.0 FAIR TRADING DEPARTMENT1.1 Over
- Page 13: Figure 1: FTD Cases - Breakdown in
- Page 18 and 19: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 20 and 21: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 22 and 23: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 24 and 25: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 26 and 27: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 28 and 29: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 31 and 32: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 33 and 34: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 35 and 36: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 37 and 38: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 39 and 40: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 41 and 42: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 43 and 44: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 45 and 46: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 47 and 48: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 49 and 50: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 51 and 52: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 53 and 54: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 55 and 56: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 57 and 58: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 59 and 60: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 61 and 62: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 63 and 64: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in <strong>2011</strong>(cont…)Cases Resolved in <strong>2011</strong>Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD2010<strong>2011</strong>/01/04/BC-FTD/02<strong>2011</strong>/01/04/BC-FTD/03<strong>2011</strong>/01/04/BC-FTD/04ComplaintagainstProduct AConsumer Bvs. Company DConsumer Cvs. Company EOn 04-01-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Organisation X,regarding the misleading labeling of Product A, imported by Company C.Once the complaint was received, the <strong>Commission</strong> wrote to Company Cinforming them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived, informing FCC that, the product used artificial flavoring which wasclearly stated in the ingredients list and there was no beef or chickenpresent in the product. <strong>The</strong> same was verified by the <strong>Commission</strong>. <strong>The</strong>above was relayed to Organisation X and the case was closed by FCC.On 04-01-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Bagainst Company D. In the complaint, the customer alleged that CompanyD was selling substandard quality footwear. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Commission</strong> made itsassessment on the issue and with a letter informed the complainant thatthe footwear did not have any express warranty and the durability of it wasbased on the nature and manner of usage. Based on the above, the casewas closed.On 04-01-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer C,regarding the increase of uniform prices, due to the increase in VAT from12.5 % to 15 %. Upon the receipt of the complaint, the <strong>Commission</strong>inspectors carried out field inspections and monitoring of all the uniformand book shops, which were exempted from VAT till 28-02-11 to ensurethat fair prices were charged to the consumers. <strong>The</strong> complainant wasinformed of the same and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesProvisionsBreachedSections – 75 & 76Sections 77 &114Section 76Page13of236
Change language