Action brought to the administrative court by Golden Times Construction Ltd. against the Fair Trade Commission for the Commission's decision regarding Golden Times' act
Chinese Taipei
Case:
Action brought to the administrative court by Golden Times Construction Ltd. against the Fair Trade Commission for the Commission's decision regarding Golden Times' act
Key words:
The Provisional Engineering Office of High Speed Rail under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, conceal, deceptive and obviously unfair acts
Reference:
Administrative court, P'an Tzu No 1404 (86)
Industry:
Construction and Development industry (4601)
Relevant Laws:
Summary:
1. In June 1993, the plaintiff, the Golden Times Construction Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as "Golden Times"], which was then promoting a community residential complex "Taipei Ch'ing P'u City," made an inquiry of the Provisional Engineering Office of High Speed Rail under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications [hereafter as "the Provisional Office"], and learned that the High Speed Rail [HSR] would pass through the planned construction site, and any development of that particular site should either be postponed or adjusted. The Provisional Office even provided Golden Times routing charts, and in October of the same year notified Chuang Wang Construction Co., Ltd., which was in charge of the planning of the specific project, that the construction site in question was within the planned route of the HSR. In November of the same year, the Provisional Office again sent the plaintiff a letter Kao Tieh Ti Tzu No. 6004 (82) asking the plaintiff to postpone the specific development project. Thereafter the Bureau of Public Works of Taoyuan county government on 28 December of the same year sent the plaintiff a letter stating that the particular site was within the HSR right of way and a postponement of the construction project was recommended. It is clear that the relevant competent authorities had more than once specifically informed the plaintiff of the fact that the intended construction site was within the HSR's right of way, and any development of that particular site should either be postponed or adjusted. The plaintiff had been holding such material trading information back from the customers and continued receiving from the purchasers the payments for the construction. Golden Times even hastened the paperwork for the ownership transfer in order to draw down on the housing loans applied for by the purchasers. The purchasers did not know the aforesaid situation until the Office of Land Administration of Luchu Township in Taoyuan sent letters in November and December 1994 notifying them that the land on which their purchased housing rested was within the planned route of the HSR. They then checked the relevant facts with the Provisional Office and the Bureau of Public Works of Taoyuan county government and found out that the plaintiff had been concealing these facts.
2. The plaintiff since November 1994 has been conducting settlement negotiations with its trading counterparts and claimed that buyers of 40 out of the 72 units which had been sold had agreed to settle with it. Such a claim on the part of the plaintiff seemed to confuse the fact that it had all along been aware of the planned route of the HSR since June 1993 with the number of units after November 1994 which were certain to be demolished. Moreover, the investigation conducted by the Commission showed that in September 1992 the Provisional Office held a seminar at the Taoyuan Municipal Cultural Center to illustrate the planned route of the HSR, and in March and April 1993 the Provisional Office sent county governments and offices of land administration routing charts and right of way charts, which made the plaintiff's claim that it had no knowledge of the planned route of the HSR untenable. On the other hand, construction companies have the duty to pay attention to laws and statutes relevant to their projects, and thus the excuse of "having no knowledge of " certain information does not exempt them from their liability. The plaintiff's act of concealing the said facts from relevant buyers and at the same time continuing receiving payments for the construction of the residential complex in question was patently in violation of the provisions of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law because it failed to fulfill its obligation of informing the buyers of the aforesaid material matters which could affect the purpose of the contract in question. Therefore, whether the plaintiff reached any settlement with the trading counterparts or took other remedial measures did not alter the fact that it had violated the provisions of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law.
Summarized by Pai, Yi-ling
Supervised by Hsu, Chao-ying
Appendix:
Golden Times Construction Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 86972860