A claim by a Northland lawyer that the Public Trust was "false and arrogant" in advertising its wills service has been rejected by the Advertising Standards Complaints Board.
Whangarei law firm partner Stuart Spicer complained about a Public Trust advertisement screened on TV2 and stating that "When it comes to plain English wills there is only one choice, the Public Trust."
The sound of "Land of Hope and Glory" was accompanied by graphics stating "I the above aforementioned, heretofore devise and bequeath forthwith all accumulated assets.." A voiceover stated that "When it comes to Plain English wills, there's only one choice. Phone Public Trust now on."
Spicer said the claim made by the advertisement was false and misleading.
"The direct statement is that the ONLY place to get a plain English will is at the Public Trust Office. The implication from the placing of the test and the voice message is that unless you go to the Public Trust Office (and nowhere else), you will receive a document with the tortuous type of wording portrayed on the screen," he said.
"The Law Society and many legal practices (including our firm) have for many years promoted and actively used plain English in documents. Like the Public Trust's documents, our wills have been rewritten in plain English so that our clients easily understand them."
KPMG Legal on behalf of the advertiser said there was no basis for Spicer's complaint. His allegations overlooked the advertisement's use of the word "choice," and the wording was in any case an obvious and acceptable use of hyperbole or puffery.
The board in considering the complaint concluded that only Rule 2 of the Advertising Codes of Practice was relevant to the complaint. That rule provides that advertisements should not contain statements or visual presentations, or create overall impressions, which are misleading or deceptive.
The board concluded that the statement in the advertisement in no way limited consumer choice to just the Public Trust.
"The very nature of the word acknowledged that you needed more than one before a choice became available. Therefore in the board's opinion the statement was not advocating exclusivity as submitted by the complainant, rather it was more in the line of a positioning statement, which in the board's view stood up to scrutiny.
The complaint was not upheld.
| « Residential Care Subsidies | The battle of the wills » |
Special Offers
© Copyright 1997-2024 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved