Case One
From my reading of this case I am of the opinion that Matt has a genuine case against the accused. I believe that Matt should take legal action against his competitor for misleading advertising. The accused has broken the Consumers Protection Act (2007). Matt has a valid case because it is affecting his business and if this problem persists Matt could possibly lose his business.
Outline of legal issues
• The advertisement of lower priced products compared to those which are in Matt’s store.
• The comparison of prices in Matt’s store which are leading brands and own brand prices in the defendants store.
• There is also the comparison of promotional prices to normal standard prices.
Comparative Advertising and Misleading Statements …show more content…
Cooley Distillery used misleading advertising; they did this by using Jameson Irish Whiskey Label and their bottle. They were selling and transporting the whiskey to Russia and selling it as Jameson Irish Whiskey. Cooley Distillery Public Limited Company has broken the Consumers Protection Act (2007).
Legal Advice
If you want to take legal action you have to make sure you have all the facts and make sure that the defendant was illegally breaching the law. Under the Consumer Protection Act (2007). “The Act prohibits traders from engaging in practices considered to be unfair, misleading or aggressive.”4 I would advise Matt to take further legal action and take it to the National Consumer Agency and tell them exactly what his competitor is doing and what Laws he is breaking.
Conclusion
In conclusion this is the problem Matt faces misleading advertising and comparative advertising. The defendant has misled customers by using his promotional prices against Matt’s standard prices and comparing his own brand products to Matt’s leading brand products. The defendant has breached the law and should suffer the consequences for doing so. The law which he broke is called the Consumer Protection Act …show more content…
A solicitor received a complaint on behalf of a data subject. The complaint was that the employer had installed CCTV cameras without informing her or other member of staff the cameras were put in place to identify disciplinary issues relating to staff. This evidence was obtained so that a staff member could be fired for gross misconduct. Staff members informed the owner that there was money going missing from their purses. This case is extremely similar to Jane’s case as she did not know she was being watch on CCTV. As in this case the Data Protection Act was broken as was her privacy.6 Cases 1.4
An employer attempts to use of CCTV for disciplinary purposes [2008] IEDPC 10 (31 December 2008). A solicitor received a complaint from two employees working in the same company that their employer was intending to use CCTV footage of them for disciplinary issues the issues were relating to attendance. As the employees were not informed of CCTV cameras in operation the evidence against them was inadmissible. As this was their only evidence the case was dropped and they did not have to attend any disciplinary hearing.7 Legal
From my reading of this case I am of the opinion that Matt has a genuine case against the accused. I believe that Matt should take legal action against his competitor for misleading advertising. The accused has broken the Consumers Protection Act (2007). Matt has a valid case because it is affecting his business and if this problem persists Matt could possibly lose his business.
Outline of legal issues
• The advertisement of lower priced products compared to those which are in Matt’s store.
• The comparison of prices in Matt’s store which are leading brands and own brand prices in the defendants store.
• There is also the comparison of promotional prices to normal standard prices.
Comparative Advertising and Misleading Statements …show more content…
Cooley Distillery used misleading advertising; they did this by using Jameson Irish Whiskey Label and their bottle. They were selling and transporting the whiskey to Russia and selling it as Jameson Irish Whiskey. Cooley Distillery Public Limited Company has broken the Consumers Protection Act (2007).
Legal Advice
If you want to take legal action you have to make sure you have all the facts and make sure that the defendant was illegally breaching the law. Under the Consumer Protection Act (2007). “The Act prohibits traders from engaging in practices considered to be unfair, misleading or aggressive.”4 I would advise Matt to take further legal action and take it to the National Consumer Agency and tell them exactly what his competitor is doing and what Laws he is breaking.
Conclusion
In conclusion this is the problem Matt faces misleading advertising and comparative advertising. The defendant has misled customers by using his promotional prices against Matt’s standard prices and comparing his own brand products to Matt’s leading brand products. The defendant has breached the law and should suffer the consequences for doing so. The law which he broke is called the Consumer Protection Act …show more content…
A solicitor received a complaint on behalf of a data subject. The complaint was that the employer had installed CCTV cameras without informing her or other member of staff the cameras were put in place to identify disciplinary issues relating to staff. This evidence was obtained so that a staff member could be fired for gross misconduct. Staff members informed the owner that there was money going missing from their purses. This case is extremely similar to Jane’s case as she did not know she was being watch on CCTV. As in this case the Data Protection Act was broken as was her privacy.6 Cases 1.4
An employer attempts to use of CCTV for disciplinary purposes [2008] IEDPC 10 (31 December 2008). A solicitor received a complaint from two employees working in the same company that their employer was intending to use CCTV footage of them for disciplinary issues the issues were relating to attendance. As the employees were not informed of CCTV cameras in operation the evidence against them was inadmissible. As this was their only evidence the case was dropped and they did not have to attend any disciplinary hearing.7 Legal