header-logo header-logo

07 June 2007 / Helen Hart
Issue: 7276 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

The end of sharp practice?

Helen Hart considers the impact of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

Traders could find their creativity stifled by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC (the Directive). Is it simply creating more red tape or will it create a level playing field which will prove a benefit for businesses? A recent Times article (27 April 2007) suggested that theatres and promoters would fall foul of the Directive if they used selective quotes from reviews to sell tickets for performances. The view was expressed that if positive-sounding quotes from otherwise negative reviews were used out of context, they would be contrary to the Directive, which outlaws giving information which is likely to mislead the average consumer, even if such information is correct.

Another practice which could fall foul of the Directive is the practice of insurance companies advertising a 14-day money back guarantee if you find a cheaper price for similar insurance elsewhere, when insurance companies must offer a cancellation period. Consequently, selling this as a benefit with the implication that it is an addition

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll