There also needs to be a qualifying statement

The ACCC says registration and compulsory thirdparty insurance payments arent mandatory to buy a vehicle, only to operate it on the road. However, the insurance levy charged varies according to whether your suburb is classified low, medium or high risk making it practically impossible to generalise and be precise in ads. The minimum requirement for advertising a cars price to satisfy the new guidelines (and therefore likely to be the most widely adopted practice) is for ads to include the recommended retail price of the car and a separate sum representing the combined dealer delivery charge and stamp duty. There also needs to be a qualifying statement, "Other onroad costs additional" referring to, but not quantifying, the registration and compulsory thirdparty insurance. However, by permitting the combining of the nonnegotiable statutory stamp duty fee with the oftnegotiable "dealer delivery fee" in a single aggregate, consumers are left guessing how much each is, without tracking down the applicable stamp duty scales and doing the maths. Without knowing how much of extra cost the dealer delivery fee represents, youd be unsure how much negotiating room you have. "Wed be going beyond the Trade Practices Act to say that youd have to specify the (dealer) delivery charge," Mr Martin says. The ACCC prefers dealers, if theyre advertising a cars price, to adopt "drive away, no more to pay" deals: a single allin dollar amount that includes registration and compulsory thirdparty insurance. But hold on arent these the very fees that werent "mandatory"? Its "best practice", the ACCC says, as "consumers should expect to pay no more than the advertised price". What the ACCC warns is likely to contravene the Trade Practices Act is an advertisement that lists the base price of the car plus the separate dollar amounts of GST, Rosetta Stone dealer delivery and administration fees and stamp duty. It seems a strange outcome. Isnt that exactly what buyers want to know that is, where theyre being stung, and by how much? In answer to that, the ACCC says the courts have held such a price treatment to be a complex or ambiguous calculation because it doesnt give the total of all mandatory charges or specify the cash price of the vehicle. "What the courts have said is that the price components must not be difficult to calculate, they must not be ambiguous," Mr Martin says. He adds: "In terms of consumer interest, its always tricky to know which way to go. If you insist on everybody listing all these things, the judge tells us thats complex. And is it fair on the industry to have to list all this stuff? As long as people know what theyre going to pay when they walk out the door in terms of the headline figure, I would have thought thats the main thing." Consumers need to be alert, too, to whos actually advertising the price: the manufacturer or a dealer. The new guidelines say manufacturers can recommend retail prices, but an advertisement may be misleading or deceptive if it conveys the impression a car can be bought from a dealer at the RRP. Manufacturers ads need to state that the price excludes other mandatory charges that may vary from trader to trader, and that the cars cant be bought directly from the factory. Where the ACCC warns the car industry that its ads could run into illegal pricefixing contraventions are those ads that are jointly done by the manufacturer and a group of dealers. If the advertised price has the effect, or likely effect, of controlling or maintaining prices by the parties agreeing to an artificially high advertised price, its likely to be deemed anticompetitive.

Posted in: Rosetta Stone,Rosetta Stone Outlet,rosetta stone software,Rosetta Stone V3