Anchu Multi-story Parking Structure Co. Ltd. was complained for placing untrue advertisement for "Tunnan Multi-story Parking Structure" by claiming that the property right to the parking lot was a permanent one
Chinese Taipei
Case:
Anchu Multi-story Parking Structure Co. Ltd. was complained for placing untrue advertisement for "Tunnan Multi-story Parking Structure" by claiming that the property right to the parking lot was a permanent one
Key Words:
concealing significant transaction, deceptive acts, adversely affect the trading order
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of 4 October 1995 (the 208th Commission Meeting); Disposition (84) Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 152
Industry:
Construction and Development Industry (6811)
Relevant Laws:
Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law
Summary:
1. The sanctioned party in this case placed an advertisement claiming that the property right of the "Tunnan Multi-story Parking Structure" was a "permanent property right." Title of the land in question was registered under the sanctioned party. If the sanctioned party were to transfer the title of the land to the buyers under a contract, then as land is of a nature that is not easily destroyed, the terminology "permanent property right" would be acceptable to the general public. As for the structure located at the location in question, i.e., the multi-story parking structure invested and built by the sanctioned party, the sanctioned party claimed that the structure had been approved in accordance with the Taipei Municipal " Key Points for the Application for Utilizing Vacant Land to Build Up Temporary Non-roadside Parking Lots", which allow the original builder to apply for a use permit under relevant construction regulations, and therewith the builder may apply for first registration of the title. The sanctioned party further claimed that therefore, all buyers will conduct the registration of property rights in the future in compliance with the regulations. However, the aforesaid statements only serve to prove that the title of the structure may be transferred from the builder to the buyers as long as a use permit was obtained for the "Tunnan parking structure" following its completion. It could not prove that the title of the structure would be a "permanent right" as indicated in the advertisement. In addition, the original builder, Shih Ya-hwa, later received a letter from the Bureau of Transportation of Taipei City dated 12 October 1994 and of a reference number: Taipei City Chiao Ting Tzu 35872. The original builder was later on 29 May 1995 altered to be the sanctioned party. The letter stated that the use life of the non-roadside parking lot in question started on the date when the registration certificate was obtained and expired eight years thereafter. In addition, while applying for the construction permit, Mr. Shih submitted an undertaking to the effect that "the use life is eight years and after the expiration date the structure shall be unconditionally demolished; if it stays intact after the expiration, a compulsory demolition may be performed and the owner of the structure shall bear all the cost." Therefore it is obvious that the sanctioned party knew from the outset clearly that the multi-story parking structure it had invested in and built would enjoy only limited service life. Under such circumstances, the so-called "permanent property rights" alleged in the advertisement for the "Tunnan Multi-story Parking Structure" was tantamount to an untrue manifestation, which misled persons to mistakenly believe that the structure portion [of the real estate] was not limited in the length of its serve life.
2. According to the relevant rules and regulations for parking lots, some flexibility is allowed in the service life of a parking lot as long as it passes inspection and safety is ensured. However, in order to extend the service life, the parking lot must successfully pass the inspection conducted three months prior to the expiration of its use life, and an application should be made for the particular purpose. Then the application will be reviewed by the competent authorities taking into consideration the current urban development in the neighboring area, the demand for parking space, urban planning, urban sights, and the impact on the traffic. Therefore, the use life of the multi-story parking structure developed by the sanctioned party depends on the use period of time approved by the relevant authorities. After the expiration, whether or not the use life may be extended is also determined by the results of the review conducted by the competent authorities. The use life of the structure thus has nothing to do with the sanctioned party's statement that "the structure may be in use forever as long as it can be registered and sustains no damages." So, the sanctioned party's act of concealing the aforesaid important information has been a deceptive one which adversely affected the order of trade.
Summarized by Lin, Ch'iu-miao
Supervised by Hsiih, Chiao-ying
＊＊: For information of translation, click here
[Browse by APEC Member
Economies] [Browse by Subject Categories] [Home]
[Decisions] [Approvals] [Interpretations] [Administrative Guidance]