Chang Yi Enterprise Co., Ltd. was complained for false advertising in connection with building advertisements for its “Chang Yi Hawaii American Town Houses” in violation of the Fair Trade Act
Chinese Taipei
Chang Yi Enterprise Co., Ltd. was complained for false advertising in connection with building advertisements for its “Chang Yi Hawaii American Town Houses” in violation of the Fair Trade Act
Key Words:
Chang Yi Hawaii, building advertisements, swimming pool
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of May 29, 2003 (the 603rd Commissioners' Meeting); Disposition (92) Kung Chu Tzu No. 92075
Industry:
Buildings Construction（3901）
Relevant Law:
Article 21 of the Fair Trade Act
Summary:
1. According to documents forwarded from the Consumer Protection Commission, in a dispute over real-estate sales, a citizen surnamed Ni led members of the “Hawaii” community in filing suit against Chang Yi Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Chang Yi). According to Chang Yi's prospectuses, buildings contracted to be built during the second construction period in Lane 99 of the project were to be separated by a distance of 16.4 meters, while the buildings actually under construction during the second period as the case was filed were separated by only 13.2 meters. In addition, the detention pool that Chang Yi was required by law to build near to mountain slope areas was deceptively advertised in poster ads as a “mermaid” swimming pool for the “Chang Yi Hawaii American Town Houses.”
2. It was found that the advertisements for the “Chang Yi Hawaii American Town Houses” included the mention of a “swimming pool.” While the Ministry of the Interior began easing restrictions on granting of permits for swimming pool construction in March of 1997, such construction is nevertheless subject to provisions of relevant building codes, and the permit applied for was for construction of a “detention pool,” while a letter from the Taoyuan County Government Bureau of Public Works also clearly indicated that the facilities to be constructed at that site were for a “detention pool.” As to whether or not those facilities could double as the “swimming pool” facilities listed in the advertisement for use by members of the community, the Soil and Water Conservation Department of the Taoyuan County Bureau of Agricultural expressed the view that as the scope of the construction permit application was for a “detention pool,” the facilities constructed at that site could not be a swimming pool, and further under regulations governing soil and water conservation must be used as a detention pool for spillwater control. Under normal conditions the pool should be kept empty, and should not interfere with the supply of irrigation water. Having any accumulation in the pool would interfere with normal runoff control and might result in flooding in lower runoff areas and create a public safety hazard. Permits for construction at the given site were obtained in August and December of 1998, which were not for a swimming pool, but only for use as a detention pool for flood control pursuant to soil and water conservation laws. Any attempt to alter the original plan for utilization and have the facilities double as a “swimming pool” would have been illegal. Chang Yi was cognizant that the Taoyuan County Government's 30 March notification allowed construction of a “detention pool,” and its advertisements in August and later that year, indicating in both text and pictures that there would be swimming pool, would cause consumers to mistakenly believe the detention pool at that site would be a swimming pool, and thus constituted false and misleading advertising.
3. Chang Yi listed the housing in its construction project as the “Sin Yi Cheng Botanical Garden Town Houses” and “Chang Yi Hawaii American Town Houses,” and its prospectuses for the first and second construction periods listed the distance between buildings in Lane 99 of the project as 16.4 meters, whereas the buildings actually under construction in the second period were separated by a distance of only 13.2 meters. The complainant provided a copy of the advertisement for the “Sin Yi Cheng Botanical Garden Townhouses,” in which the cross-sectional schematics E001-E003 were labeled with the indication “520-600-520.” Such an indication means that the distance between the buildings at the Lane 99 location on Guang Yu South Street in Yang Mei Jhen, given the breadth of the lane and the statutory distance required between it and the buildings' first floors on each side, should total 16.4 meters. The actual distance of 13.2 meters for buildings completed during the first phase of construction and under construction in the second phase, however, did not conform to this measurement. The indications regarding distance between buildings in the advertisements for the “Sin Yi Cheng Botanical Garden Town Houses” were therefore false and misleading and in violation of Article 21(1) of the Fair Trade Act.
Appendix:
Chang Yi Enterprise Co., Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 52367648
Summarized by Chiang, Kuo-Lun; Supervised by Wu, Ting-Hung