Weichi Steel Ltd. in its advertisement made misrepresentation in connection with the elevator facility installed in the Universal Fame Residential Complex, which was put on sale before its completion

Chinese Taipei

Case:

Weichi Steel Ltd. in its advertisement made misrepresentation in connection with the elevator facility installed in the Universal Fame Residential Complex, which was put on sale before its completion

Key Words:

fasle advertisements

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of September 11, 1996 (the 254th Commission Meeting); Disposition (85) Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 160

Industry:

Construction and Development Industry (6811)

Relevant Laws:

Articles 21 of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. The managing board of the Universal Fame Residential Complex complained to the Fair Trade Commission that the sanctioned party, Weichi Steel Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as "Weichi Steel"], in selling the Universal Fame Residential Complex, engaged in the following acts which violated the provisions of the Fair Trade Law:

(1) The sanctioned party described the complex as a "modern art magnificent mansion with gardens" in part of the catch lines. A map drawn on the advertising leaflet indicated a garden equipped with recreational facilities located between Block A and a twelve-meter road. However, after the delivery, it was found out that no space was left between Block A and the twelve-meter road.

(2) Though it was agreed in the sale contract that any elevators of the same class as Hitachi elevators would be acceptable, the sanctioned party in the end installed Jihhsin elevators, which are not comparable to the Hitachi elevators in terms of price, quality and service.

2. The advertising pamphlet did express definitely that the elevator facilities installed in the complex would be either Hitachi elevators imported from Japan or elevators of the same class, but in the end the elevators the sanctioned party installed were Jihhsin elevators, which fact the sanctioned party did not deny. Therefore, whether or not the sanctioned party was engaged in misrepresentation or misleading manifestation would depend on whether Jihhsin elevators could be regarded as products of the same class as the Hitachi elevators. According to the definition of construction materials of the same class given by the Ministry of Interior, products of the same class refer to those whose quality and functions are not inferior to the designated brands. The investigation shows that the sanctioned party stated that it would later submit information on the comparability in quality and functions between the Hitachi and Jihhsin elevators. Nonetheless, the sanctioned party has failed to provide supporting information for five months. In other words, there was not enough evidence to justify its act of installing the Jihhsin elevators instead of the designated Hitachi elevators. Moreover, after referring to the directory of the top 20 manufacturers of elevators and escalators in terms of their market share, which was compiled by the Statistics Office of the Commission based on the customs import value and the value of domestic sales calculated by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, this Commission did not find that Jihhsin Elevator Engineering Co. Ltd., the supplier of the aforesaid Jihhsin elevators, was listed on the directory while Yungta Electric and Machinery Co., the distributor of the Hitachi elevators, was ranked No. 1 in the market. Therefore it is unlikely that the Jihhsin elevators could be deemed products of the same class as the Hitachi elevators, and a conclusion may thus be drawn that the snactioned party made misrepresentation and misleading manifestation in its advertisements. On the other hand, the sanctioned party claimed that the Jihhsin elevators had been approved by the Bureau of Public Works of Tainan County and successfully passed the inspection conducted by the Association of Machinery Safety, but this only proved that the elevators in question complied with the elevator inspection standards and had nothing to do with the criteria used to determine whether or not the Jhihsin elevators are of the same class as the Hitachi elevators. Consequently, the sanctioned party's reply was not admissible and the sanctioned party was found having violated the provisions of Article 21(1) of the Fair Trade Law.

3. With regard to the construction of a recreational garden supposedly located between Block A and a nearby road, the sanctioned party provided a picture of the specific spot and the recreational garden seems to have been completed according to the picture, an observation contrary to what the complainants alleged. Even if there is an incomplete delivery of part of the recreational facilities, it falls into the category of contract disputes and is not related to the provisions of Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law.

　

Summarized by Wu, Ts'ui-feng

Appendix:
Weichi Steel Ltd.' Uniform Invoice No.: 69771637

＊＊: For information of translation, click here

[Browse by APEC Member Economies] [Browse by Subject Categories] [Home]
[Decisions] [Approvals] [Interpretations] [Administrative Guidance]