Harvey Norman Expensive One Day, Dodgy Claims The Next

X

They have been branded the most expensive stores to shop at, now several Harvey Norman franchisees are facing legal action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for allegedly misrepresenting consumer rights.

The ACCC is seeking court orders including penalties, declarations, injunctions and costs against nine Harvey Norman franchisees.



The nine Harvey Norman franchisees are: Avitalb Pty Limited, located in Albany, Western Australia, Bunavit Pty Limited, located in Bundall, Queensland, Camavit Pty Limited, located in Campbelltown, New South Wales, HP Superstore Pty Limited, located in Hoppers Crossing, Victoria, Launceston Superstore Pty Limited, located in Launceston, Tasmania, Mandurvit Pty Limited, located in Mandurah, Western Australia, Moonah Superstore Pty Limited, located in Moonah, Tasmania, Oxteha Pty Limited, located in Oxley, Queensland; and, Salecomp Pty Limited, located in Sale, Victoria.



While the allegations made by the ACCC against each of the franchisees differ, examples of the misrepresentations include representations that the franchisee had no obligation to provide remedies for damaged goods unless notified within a specific period of time such as 24 hours or 14 days.



The ACC said that the franchisee had no obligation to provide remedies for goods still covered by the manufacturer’s warranty, and consumers must pay a fee for the repair and return of faulty products.



“It is important for these matters to be considered by the court. The ACCC will continue to take enforcement action where it believes that retailers or manufacturers have misled consumers about their rights under the consumer guarantee provisions of the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.



“Consumers have rights to certain remedies from retailers and manufacturers when goods fail to comply with the consumer guarantee provisions, including that goods are of acceptable quality and fit for the purpose for which they were sold.”



“These rights cannot be excluded, restricted or modified,” Mr Sims said.



 “While the ACCC does not allege that Harvey Norman Holdings Limited is involved in making of these representations, the fact that the allegations made by the ACCC relate to a number of its stores in widespread locations across Australia is of great concern to the ACCC, and I expect to Harvey Norman too,” Sims added.

Flick of a switch 728x90 1 Harvey Norman Expensive One Day, Dodgy Claims The Next
3sixT GS24 EDM 728 x 90 px 02 Harvey Norman Expensive One Day, Dodgy Claims The Next
240215 SAV R Volution CNewsFeb Leaderboard 1 Harvey Norman Expensive One Day, Dodgy Claims The Next
Aspire Vero Banner Intel CCF 728x90 Harvey Norman Expensive One Day, Dodgy Claims The Next
BlueAnt PumpAirANC WebBanner 728x90 Harvey Norman Expensive One Day, Dodgy Claims The Next
Martin Logan 728 x 90 Harvey Norman Expensive One Day, Dodgy Claims The Next
728x90 Harvey Norman Expensive One Day, Dodgy Claims The Next
QUEEN 728x90 Harvey Norman Expensive One Day, Dodgy Claims The Next
Middleton 728x90px Product Harvey Norman Expensive One Day, Dodgy Claims The Next
Haier 728x90 1 Harvey Norman Expensive One Day, Dodgy Claims The Next


YOU MAY ALSO LIKE