Action brought to the Administrative Court by Mayflower Int'l Affairs against the Commission's mandamus directing that Mayflower's inaccurate immigration/investment advertisement shall be corrected
Chinese Taipei
Case:
Action brought to the Administrative Court by Mayflower Int'l Affairs against the Commission's mandamus directing that Mayflower's inaccurate immigration/investment advertisement shall be corrected
Key Words:
False and inaccurate, misleading
Reference:
Administrative Court P'an Tzu No. 1719 (82)
Industry:
Miscellaneous Industry (7909)
Relevant Laws:
Summary:
1. Plaintiff's advertisement of April 28 and 29, 1992 on Lu Gu Project stated that "to obtain a green card in 90 days and immediately establish residency in the United States." In accordance with the regulations of U.S. Immigration Law, a conditional immigrant visa must be obtained first, then application may be made in the 90 days prior to the expiration of a 2 year period. Where there is compliance with the conditions of U.S. immigration law, a permanent green card may be obtained. Thus, the advertisement was inconsistent with the facts and misled people to believe that it is possible to obtain a permanent right of residency within 90 days. In addition in the middle of the advertisement there was a large photo of the president of Kahala Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Kahala's President"), which authorized the paintiff LU Gu Project shaking hands with President Lee. The advertisement also claims: "Reputation of the Leader Class" The fact that the appellant previously had never conducted any immigration/investment business made its aforementioned statement inaccurate and misleading. Moreover, the said photograph was taken when Kahala's President came with a delegation from the State of Nevada to visit President Lee and had nothing to do with Lu Gu Project. Linking its Project with the President's prestige misled people to believe that the President acquiesced on or had close connection with the immigration Project and to feel comfortable making investment on the immigration Project. The statements in the advertisement that "Only an allotment for 12 households...first come, first-served" was also inconsistent with the fact , where in fact the first quota was for 12 households, the second quota for 6 households, with the maximum number of people of up to 60 people. This misrepresentation designated was to mislead people to believe that there was a quota and the opportunity to participate was very limited. This advertisement violated Article 21(3) of the Fair Trade Law which provides that Article 21(1) can be applied mutates mutandis.
2. The "correction" made by the plaintiff on June 8 and 9 of this year in accordance with the respondent's, (i.e., the Fair Trade Commission's) mandamus did not address the inaccurate and misleading nature of the advertisement, on the other hand, it denied and defended any wrongdoing. Therefore, it was not sufficient to remove the misleading effect of its original advertisement on consumers and could not be deemed a corrective statement. The respondent , according to the second part of Article 41 of the Fair Trade Law, which provides for the mandamus for continuous correction, issued another order directing that the plaintiff shall publish a statement of amendment, specifically indicating that the Fair Trade Commission had already held its previous advertisement inaccurate and misleading. The plaintiff contends that the "mandamus" under Article 41 of the Fair Trade Law is to order that future advertisements may not contain the indicated matters and that the respondent does not have the power to require the appellant to publish a statement to amend or correct the original advertisement. This argument cannot be supported by the aforementioned provisions of the law and shall be dismissed. As to whether the amendment statement of the plaintiff is sufficient to remedy the misleading effect on consumers resulting from the initial advertisement, and to what extent would be sufficient should be determined by respondent. Any amendment statement which does not have said remedial effect cannot be considered as complying with the provisions of Article 41 of the Fair Trade Law regarding mandamus of correction.
Summarized by Chen, Chun T'ing
Supervised by Chen, Hui P'ing