online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
29-05-2015 08:19 PM - edited 29-05-2015 08:22 PM
info includes the following statements -
Electronic Bazaar operator to pay penalties of $100,000 for misleading consumers
"The Federal Court of Australia has ordered Mr Dhruv Chopra, the sole operator of the online electronics store Electronic Bazaar, to pay penalties totalling $100,000 for contravening the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), in proceedings brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Electronic Bazaar sold camcorders, digital cameras, mobile phones, laptops, projectors, and other electronic goods through its website The Court declared that since at least 21 May 2014, Mr Chopra had made false or misleading representations to consumers about the availability of refunds and the extent of Electronic Bazaar’s liability for faulty goods.
These representations included that consumers were not entitled to a refund, repair, or replacement for goods in various circumstances, such as where the goods were no longer under an express warranty, where the goods had been used or were not in their original packaging, or unless a claim was made within a specified time period."
“The Court's decision to impose a significant penalty on Mr Chopra, a sole trader, for misrepresenting consumers' refund and warranty rights makes it clear that this conduct is a serious breach of the Australian Consumer Law. A consumer’s right to a refund, repair, or replacement in certain circumstances under the ACL consumer guarantees cannot be excluded or modified by terms or conditions published on a website,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.
Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 29-05-2015 09:21 PM
Crow and Cat...
ohh well there you go. This was quite some time ago (like years) I was learning about it. I was under the impression it was $20,000 per incident, then theyd add on things like court fees / compensation / other relative fines etc etc whatever else. Must have been something else.
I read it as $10,000... missed a 0... wow, he'll never do that again!
Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
29-05-2015 09:31 PM - edited 29-05-2015 09:32 PM
I made a typo & missed a zero in the subject title ..... I then edited it to correct it ...
I tricked ya
.... some of the titles in subsequent posts still show as $10K
Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 29-05-2015 10:59 PM
poor guy. a sole trader fined 100K. there goes the mortgage 😕
I find this has a significant impact on sellers on ebay, "mum and dad" sellers who don't have a proper business structure and do not understand ebay rules, let alone the law. I shake my head when I see disclaimers like "no refunds!" "no returns" on some listings.
Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 30-05-2015 03:07 AM
Samsorange I think you missed a very important point regarding your mum and dad sellers.
A consumer’s right to a refund, repair, or replacement in certain circumstances
The law does not apply to non business sellers nor does it apply to second hand goods.
It says in this book I am reading that by 2065 80% of women will be overweight.
See what a trendsetter I am?
Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 30-05-2015 10:03 AM
Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 30-05-2015 10:16 AM
@phorum_junkie* wrote:Samsorange I think you missed a very important point regarding your mum and dad sellers.
A consumer’s right to a refund, repair, or replacement in certain circumstances
The law does not apply to non business sellers nor does it apply to second hand goods.
Consumer law does indeed apply to second hand goods if bought from a business.
http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/the_acl/downloads/consumer_guarantees_guide.pdf
"Which goods are covered?
Goods are covered by the consumer guarantees as long as they are sold in trade or commerce and bought by a consumer.
Second-hand, leased or hired goods are also covered."
Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 30-05-2015 09:09 PM
So I didn't word it very well, I did mean second hand goods from private sellers although the second hand items, I have been told, are only covered for misrepresentation, in other words if they are sold As is and any faults are mentioned it is buyer beware.
It says in this book I am reading that by 2065 80% of women will be overweight.
See what a trendsetter I am?
Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 31-05-2015 02:05 PM
Not so sure about the "poor guy" Electronic Bazaar is well known on Whirlpool for its poor customer service and refunds. Whirlpool has a topic going back to 2008 over 18 pages about the problems buyers have had with them.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1094235
Profanity is no substitute for wit.
Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 03-06-2015 02:22 PM
lol, yes but consumer law in Australia has gotten out of hand.
Someone can buy something use it, break it, or it break down, then demand refund or a new one when its
meant to be under warranty and get repaired and thats provided it wasnt from customer damaging it.
(In the fine lettering of the law, if the item is customer damaged in ANY way, the claim can be refused but,
most business's go down the repair path as its often cheaper n quieter but technically the customer under
the fine lettering of the law can demand and is owed a refund, have to argue over major fault which
can be claimed to be anything.) Contradicts itself.
Hence some items have reduce warranties(down to a matter of weeks) but the consumer law seems to imply much longer
coverage(years) and never clarifies it for anything. I know as in regards to radio control toys have gone thru the coals over it.
Your just meant to absorb it n include the costs into your business.
Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 04-06-2015 09:46 PM
@toysandthings12 wrote:lol, yes but consumer law in Australia has gotten out of hand.
Someone can buy something use it, break it, or it break down, then demand refund or a new one when its
meant to be under warranty and get repaired and thats provided it wasnt from customer damaging it.
(In the fine lettering of the law, if the item is customer damaged in ANY way, the claim can be refused but,
most business's go down the repair path as its often cheaper n quieter but technically the customer under
the fine lettering of the law can demand and is owed a refund, have to argue over major fault which
can be claimed to be anything.) Contradicts itself.
Hence some items have reduce warranties(down to a matter of weeks) but the consumer law seems to imply much longer
coverage(years) and never clarifies it for anything. I know as in regards to radio control toys have gone thru the coals over it.
Your just meant to absorb it n include the costs into your business.
BS

