dc.description.abstract |
Consumer rights law in this age of globalization has generated new challenges for policy
makers to ensure a stable and sustainable community. At the same time, the familiar
doctrine ‘let the buyer beware’ is no longer the case with the introduction of consumer
rights law. Most manufacturers or marketers introduce a product through television
channels, newspapers, world wide websites, notices, exhibitions, and brochures.
Advertisements are considered to be the most popular tool for introducing a new product
as well as promoting an existing product. Thus, advertisements are expected to bring a
positive aspect in the way a consumer would make his decision about the product. At this
point, it provides an opportunity to the manufacturers/marketers to divulge prodigiously
about the products they produce or market. It should be noted that according to the law of
contract, advertisements are considered as mere trade puffing or exaggeration. However,
if the advertisements mislead or had induced viewers to purchase a product or engage a
service the misrepresentation law will apply. Further, advertising a product should ensure
fairness and the free flow of truthful information which depend on credibility and
trustworthiness on the part of the advertiser exponent of advertising law. As per Belch and
Belch and Ohanian, credibility refers to the extent to which the source is perceived as
possessing the expertise required for the communication of the topic and can be trusted to
give an objective opinion on the subject. Expertise is derived from knowledge of the
subject, and trustworthiness refers to the honesty and believability of the source
(McGinnies and Ward 1980). Those dimensions of source expertise and trustworthiness
are important to conceptualizing credibility that has been shown to be influential in
persuading consumers1. Consumers vary in size and knowledge and it is human
psychology that influences decision making. Advertisements can target a group of
children, teenagers, women or the public at large. However, it is noteworthy what Franki
J’s stated in Annand and Thompson v Trade Practices Commission2 that “the question is
to be tested by the effect on a person not particularly intelligent or well informed but
perhaps of less than average intelligence and background knowledge […]. The question is
not whether the purchaser was deceived but whether the conduct was misleading or
deceptive”. |
|