Fairness Commission: "The outdated price"
Failing to specify the duration of a special offer in a commercial communication can quickly amount to unfair business practices. This is the conclusion reached by the Swiss Fair Trading Commission in the case of a restaurant guide.
A company had offered a "daily menu" for CHF 9.90 in a brochure, but later charged around CHF 1 more for it. A consumer was offended by this and lodged a complaint with the Swiss Commission for Fair Trading. He believed that the information in the corresponding restaurant guide was unfair. The respondent, for its part, pointed out that the guide was over a year old at the time of the complaint. The price of CHF 9.90 had previously been valid, but had then been adjusted. It therefore considered a complaint to be an abuse of rights.
The First Chamber of the Fair Trading Commission disagreed. The incriminated guide did not contain any dates or other references to the validity period of the favorable offer. The fact that the guide had already been circulated a year ago was also not accepted by the Commission as justification. It wrote: "In addition to the offers, the guide also contains general information such as address details of other restaurants in the chain and therefore has a long-term purpose". In this respect, it was also irrelevant when exactly the complainant came into possession of the guide.
The respondent was responsible for the commercial communication and did not inform the addressees how long the offer was valid. Since it failed to provide this information and the offer was no longer available, it had acted unfairly pursuant to Art. 3 lit. b UCA.
The First Chamber of the Fair Trading Commission disagreed. The incriminated guide did not contain any dates or other references to the validity period of the favorable offer. The fact that the guide had already been circulated a year ago was also not accepted by the Commission as justification. It wrote: "In addition to the offers, the guide also contains general information such as address details of other restaurants in the chain and therefore has a long-term purpose". In this respect, it was also irrelevant when exactly the complainant came into possession of the guide.
The respondent was responsible for the commercial communication and did not inform the addressees how long the offer was valid. Since it failed to provide this information and the offer was no longer available, it had acted unfairly pursuant to Art. 3 lit. b UCA.
