Yung T'ang Construction Co., Ltd.'s pre-sale house false advertising
Chinese Taipei
Case:
Yung T'ang Construction Co., Ltd.'s pre-sale house false advertising
Key Words:
false advertising, central courtyard square, city planned road
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of December 9, 1998 (370th Commissioner Meeting); Disposition (87) Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 249
Industry:
Housing Construction Engineering Industry (4601)
Relevant Law:
Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law
Summary:
In pre-sale house advertisements for the "Kuilin World" it had invested in and built, Yung T'ang Construction Co., Ltd. (Yung T'ang) announced it would provide an "800 p'ing1 central courtyard square, and 25 types of five-star recreational facilities, as a free gift, to use for life" but concealed both the fact that the courtyard had an eight meter planned road through the middle that could be expropriated by the government at any time and that in reality the prospective house buyer would not have permanent and legal use.
Yung T'ang argued that the land for the eight meter city planned road was planned when the Kaohsiung Municipal Government (KMG) built the Hsiao Kang Airport and to date had yet to be expropriated. In Yung T'ang's ads illustrating the building of badminton courts and an ice rink for residents' use, the planned road's surface area had not been calculated into the surface area of the house being sold and would not affect the rights and interests of purchasers or produce a mistaken belief. The KMG's response letter indicated that, although the land for the planned road had yet to be expropriated, when the KMG decides to use the reserved land anything on it will be considered illegal construction and dismantled and removed according to the provisions of the relevant KMG disposition principles.
In summary, Yung T'ang Co., in addition to concealing the truth and failing to inform purchasers of the fact that a city planned road ran through the central courtyard, also drew in its ad illustrations many public facilities while simultaneously using language indicating that those facilities were a free gift to use for life, causing the general consumer, when seeing the ad content as a whole, to form a mistaken belief about the central courtyard's space and the permanent legal use of the public facilities and enter into trade with Yung T'ang. Yung T'ang's advertisements violated Article 21(1) of the Fair Trade Law.
Summarized by Ch'en Wan-chen
Supervised by Wu Ting-hung
Appendix:
Yung T'ang Co., Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice No.: 86685396