The court first considered that the plaintiff did not specify the period of validity of the offer. The court then stated that consumers could receive the discount up to 100 LVL only if the tour was booked for 4 travellers and consumers could receive the 20% discount only until 15 September 2008, which boiled down to additional requirements not mentioned in the advertisement.
Since the additional criteria were not specified in the promotional material, it was held by the court that the statements of the plaintiff were misleading.
The court also found that a trader’s statement of an opportunity to receive discounts up to 100 LVL or 20%, means that an opportunity for consumers to receive the maximum discount has to be provided.
Furthermore, requirements for receiving the discount have to be clearly understandable in the statement of the trader. Otherwise the statement itself encourages the consumers to make economically unfavourable decisions.
As a result, the court concluded that the commercial practice was misleading, even though the advertised amounts of discounts were granted (upon compliance with the additional requirements), and although no complaints from consumers were reported.
URL: http://www.tiesas.lv/files/AL/2010/09_2010/28_09_2010/AL_2809_raj_A-02708-10_18.pdf
Pilns teksts: Pilns teksts