Norfolk County Trading Standards Service v Bycroft and Ors [2012] EWHC 4417 (Admin) – S 1 PMA – (FA – CPUTR – BPMMR).
- “approximately”, “subject to survey”, “not guaranteed”.
1) 0.4 acres could not reasonably be regarded as approximately 0.75 acres.
2) policy of PMA to protect public from false or misleading statements; legislation not concerned with actual impact of misdescription in individual case.
3) fact that accuracy of a statement is not guaranteed does not answer the question of whether the statement is false.
4) difference between a “disclaimer” and a “qualification” of an asserted fact.
- makes no sense to assert a fact and then disclaim it.
- test of whether a qualified statement is false has to be applied to the statement as qualified.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- R v Bull [1997] RTR 123 - S 1(1)(a) TDA.
- applying - "Bull disclaimer". 1) to copy an odometer reading on to an invoice is to apply a trade description. 2) a qualification to a description is part of the description and not a "mere disclaimer".