COMM 393 Chapter Notes - Chapter Case: Calgary Sun, False Advertising
COMM 393 R. v. 279707 Alberta Ltd. Case Briefs
[1991] A.J. No. 364, 35 C.B.R (3d) 570, 81 Alta. L. R. (2d) 100, 116 AR 13
Alberta Court of Appeal
Judgment: April 25, 1991
Facts
Situation
• The respondent (279707 Alberta Ltd) advertised a certain model of television set repeatedly at a
sale price. However, prospective buyers were told that the sets were sold out and would not be
restocked. Rain checks were hard to get, and those obtained were not honoured.
• The wholesaler to the retailer was shown to have had a large and ready supply of the television
set (around 100), disputed by the President of the retailer, which had between two and five
during the period of the advertising.
• The respondent ran advertisements with identical wording in the Calgary Sun, and related clearly
to the Calgary stores
Initial Decision
• The Provincial Trial Court convinced the accused on all counts
• The Cout of Quee’s Beh oetued the oitio upo appeal ad eteed auittals
• The Crown is now appealing to the Alberta Court of Appeal
Issues
• Did the accused violate s. 52 of the Competition Act through misleading advertising?
• Did the accused violate s. 57 of the Competition Act through not supplying bargain goods advertised?
• Does the Kienapple principle apply in this case?
Reasons
Law: Section 52 of the Competition Act – misleading advertising
• Charges of false advertising must consider facts existing at the time that the advertisement was run
o Events after the advertisement is run can be indicative of facts at the time the advertisement was
run
o In this case, the identically worded advertisement was run multiple times, and thus times were
interleaved
Conclusion -The accused violated s. 52 of the Competition Act through misleading advertisement with only two to
five sets of supply in stock
Law: Section 57 of the Competition Act – not supplying bargain goods advertised
• The trial judge agreed that the accused never had an honest intent to sell the products at the price, and
this will be accepted in the Alberta Court of Appeal
• The actual supply of the retailer (two to five sets) is too small to reasonably fulfill the advertisements, as
pe the defiitio of supply - on hand or available
Conclusion -The accused violated s. 57 of the Competition Act through not supplying bargain goods advertised by
having no intention to sell the goods it advertised repeatedly or to honour any rain checks
Law: The accepted defiitio of suppl, take fro the “horter Oford Dictioar
• The holesale’s stok does ot out as supply – the retailer also made no intention of purchasing those
units
• supply ust e sold upo dead; the ustoes i this ase ee epeatedly deied upo euest fo
purchase
Law: Kienapple principle
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
The respondent (279707 alberta ltd) advertised a certain model of television set repeatedly at a sale price. However, prospective buyers were told that the sets were sold out and would not be restocked. Rain checks were hard to get, and those obtained were not honoured. The respondent ran advertisements with identical wording in the calgary sun, and related clearly to the calgary stores. The provincial trial court convinced the accused on all counts. The cou(cid:396)t of quee(cid:374)"s be(cid:374)(cid:272)h o(cid:448)e(cid:396)tu(cid:396)(cid:374)ed the (cid:272)o(cid:374)(cid:448)i(cid:272)tio(cid:374) upo(cid:374) appeal a(cid:374)d e(cid:374)te(cid:396)ed a(cid:272)(cid:395)uittals. The crown is now appealing to the alberta court of appeal. Law: section 52 of the competition act misleading advertising. Charges of false advertising must consider facts existing at the time that the advertisement was run: events after the advertisement is run can be indicative of facts at the time the advertisement was run. In this case, the identically worded advertisement was run multiple times, and thus times were interleaved.
