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 CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/24/BC-FTD/622011/03/18/BC-FTD/63Consumer Cvs. Company MSupplier D vs.Company N,O,P,Q & ROn 24-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer C. TheComplainant bought a 15hp Yamaha Outboard Engine from Company M on13-12-10 and after using it for approximately 2 hours, the Engine did notstart. On 29-12-10, the complainant took the Engine to have it replaced andhe was advised that a replacement would be made in two weeks, however,3 months went past but the replacement was not done. FCC mediated thematter and Company M agreed to repair the engine FOC and the same wascompleted and the matter resolved.On 17-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Supplier D againsta total of 5 supermarkets. FCC was informed that these supermarkets werenot allowing Supplier D to access their shelves in the supermarkets and thereason given by these supermarkets was that they had exclusive deals withCompany X. FCC formally wrote to all 5 supermarkets informing them of theissue and seeking a response. A response was received from the 5supermarkets, informing FCC that the company offered more than 500cartons of products which were not commercially viable, the price offeredwas not competitive compared to other competitors and there was nostandard pricing and Supplier D offered different prices to differentsupermarkets. That is, Supplier D was offering preferential pricing to sometraders and this distorted the market in terms of the final retail prices. The 5supermarkets informed the Commission that they were willing to trade withSupplier D provided that everyone was treated equally by the supplier. Theabove was conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed as nofurther correspondences were received.Division 1 -Warranty Section 116Restrictive TradePracticesSection 69Page37of236