list of contributors - GALA

The complainant was of the opinion that the commercial was misleading
because the Samsung products only had warranties for one month, whereas
the perception of a Samsung warranty would be the normal one or two year
period. Furthermore, the products being sold were “seconds” and were not
advertised as such, and nowhere on the advertisement did the word
“Voetstoets” appear.
The respondent submitted that nowhere in the advertisement was it
mentioned that the goods were new, and all terms and conditions were read
out at the beginning of the auction, as well as handed out to all buyers with
the catalogue. Furthermore, all sales were “voetstoets” and the complainant
was willing to buy on a public auction.
The question before the Directorate was whether the advertisement created
the impression that the goods sold would be new goods with normal
warranties.
The layout of the advertisement was clearly that of an auction house, and the
wording at the top of the advertisement indicated that the respondent was in
the business of selling repossessed goods.
Given that the advertisement was clearly from an auction with repossessed
assets, the advertisement as a whole created the impression that the
advertised products were not new.
Therefore, the Directorate concluded that a hypothetical reasonable
consumer would not believe that new goods were being advertised by an
auction house that specialised in repossessed goods, and would therefore not
expect a normal warranty. Based on this, the advertisement was found to not
be misleading, and did not create an impression that the advertised products
were new or have new product type guarantees.