Thirdly, when a person uses deceptive designations or representations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services6. Fourthly, when a person represents those services as of a particular quality, standard or grader, as well as, when they state that goods are of a particular model or style in in real sense they are of another. Lastly, when a person engages in any other conduct, which similarly creates a likelihood of misunderstanding or confusion among others7. The Uniform Trade Practices Act further provides that in order for the complaint to prevail in an action under this section they must prove that there was actual completion between the parties or actual misunderstanding or confusion lead them into believing that the service provider was genuine8.
Therefore, in the case of Ivory Limited, it was implied to them that Bendy Cooper Company could manage to repair the heating system within two working days, but it in turn took twelve days, which they paid. In their case, the service provider misleads them into believing that the repairs could be done at a shorter period.
Additionally, there was a misunderstanding in the sense that, Bendy Cooper had stated that they would conclude the repairs and make the major changes using new materials which the company did not use but they were paid. In addition, to that Bendy Cooper Company made Ivory limited to believe that the materials costed more, but they later realized that the materials were only going for 65.00. Therefore, there was clear deception from Bendy Cooper Company as they took advantage of their consumers.
The deceptive acts of Bendy Cooper made Ivory limited make losses because they had to stay without hot water for twelve days. Additionally, they damaged their practice because five weeks later the heating system was faulty again. Because a deceptive act made Ivory to make loses, they have a remedy under the law. In that, according to section 3 of the Act, any person or business that is likely to be damaged by the deceptive trade practice may be granted an injunctive relief upon terms that the court may deem reasonable9.
The Act further states that a person is not required making any monetary damage, intent to deceive or loss of profits in order to be granted injunctive relief. Additionally, the court can grant the complaint restitution where the defendant may be required to refund the money or the profit they made from the deceptive practices. By so doing, the court ensures that the complaint is taken back to the position they were before the deceptive trade practice occurred10.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples