Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Subway stores try to get out of legal obligations...
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Noodle
Sep 11, 2011, 5:40:36 AM9/11/11
to
Hello.
Under the new 2011 Australian Consumer Law ("Competition & Consumer
Act 2011"), it is illegal for businesses to use "bait and switch"
techniques.
Yet, Subway is breaching this law and doesn't care.
I told Subway Head Office of one of their stores refusing to honor
their legitimate 2-for-1 vouchers:
"
Thank you for contacting Subway Systems Australia.
All Subway restaurants are individually owned and operated by
Franchises. Subway franchises participate in an Advertising Trust
that employs a national advertising agency as well as local
advertising agencies to develop the Subway brand.
The voucher campaign is a local NSW State-based campign only, so not
all Subway Restaurants in Australia are involved.
Further to that, because all Restaurants are independent small
businesses, Subway Systems Australia cannot impose any discounts,
specials or coupons on Restaurants.
However, with your permission, I can pass on your disappointment on to
the franchise owner and the regional development office for that area.
Thank you once again for taking the time to contact us.
Lynn Muir,
Franchise Services Co-ordinator,
Subway Systems Australia
"
Who will prosecute the Subway franchise?
Noodle.
Under the new 2011 Australian Consumer Law ("Competition & Consumer
Act 2011"), it is illegal for businesses to use "bait and switch"
techniques.
Yet, Subway is breaching this law and doesn't care.
I told Subway Head Office of one of their stores refusing to honor
their legitimate 2-for-1 vouchers:
"
Thank you for contacting Subway Systems Australia.
All Subway restaurants are individually owned and operated by
Franchises. Subway franchises participate in an Advertising Trust
that employs a national advertising agency as well as local
advertising agencies to develop the Subway brand.
The voucher campaign is a local NSW State-based campign only, so not
all Subway Restaurants in Australia are involved.
Further to that, because all Restaurants are independent small
businesses, Subway Systems Australia cannot impose any discounts,
specials or coupons on Restaurants.
However, with your permission, I can pass on your disappointment on to
the franchise owner and the regional development office for that area.
Thank you once again for taking the time to contact us.
Lynn Muir,
Franchise Services Co-ordinator,
Subway Systems Australia
"
Who will prosecute the Subway franchise?
Noodle.
jg
Sep 11, 2011, 6:38:07 AM9/11/11
to
Sylvia Else
Sep 11, 2011, 8:13:20 AM9/11/11
to
On 11/09/2011 7:40 PM, Noodle wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Under the new 2011 Australian Consumer Law ("Competition& Consumer
> Hello.
>
that the particular franchisee concerned participated in the voucher
promotion, but then refused to honour the voucher, you have no basis on
which to prosecute them.
Sylvia.
Noodle
Sep 11, 2011, 8:32:07 AM9/11/11
to
Hello.
> The letter from Subway Systems seems clear enough. Unless you can show
> that the particular franchisee concerned participated in the voucher
> promotion, but then refused to honour the voucher, you have no basis on
> which to prosecute them.
Fair enough.
So, if McDonalds had an advertisement for a "$1 Cheeseburger" on TV
throughout Sydney which was ONLY subsequently honored in their Auburn
(Sydney) store, because I could not prove that my local Bondi
McDonalds created the ad, they can reject all purchases wanting that
$1 Cheeseburger.
Even though most normal people would think: "Hmmm....McDonalds add on
TV for $1 Cheeseburger....And there is a McDonalds down the road in
Bondi close to where I live...hmmm...I'll go and buy a $1 Cheeseburger
now".
Only to be rebuffed by the Counter staff and told "Sorry, only the
AUBURN store has this promotion."
Seems like the law is an ass, if this is the case....
> The letter from Subway Systems seems clear enough. Unless you can show
> that the particular franchisee concerned participated in the voucher
> promotion, but then refused to honour the voucher, you have no basis on
> which to prosecute them.
So, if McDonalds had an advertisement for a "$1 Cheeseburger" on TV
throughout Sydney which was ONLY subsequently honored in their Auburn
(Sydney) store, because I could not prove that my local Bondi
McDonalds created the ad, they can reject all purchases wanting that
$1 Cheeseburger.
Even though most normal people would think: "Hmmm....McDonalds add on
TV for $1 Cheeseburger....And there is a McDonalds down the road in
Bondi close to where I live...hmmm...I'll go and buy a $1 Cheeseburger
now".
Only to be rebuffed by the Counter staff and told "Sorry, only the
AUBURN store has this promotion."
Seems like the law is an ass, if this is the case....
Sylvia Else
Sep 11, 2011, 8:47:58 AM9/11/11
to
On 11/09/2011 10:32 PM, Noodle wrote:
> Hello.
>
>> The letter from Subway Systems seems clear enough. Unless you can show
>> that the particular franchisee concerned participated in the voucher
>> promotion, but then refused to honour the voucher, you have no basis on
>> which to prosecute them.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> So, if McDonalds had an advertisement for a "$1 Cheeseburger" on TV
> throughout Sydney which was ONLY subsequently honored in their Auburn
> (Sydney) store, because I could not prove that my local Bondi
> McDonalds created the ad, they can reject all purchases wanting that
> $1 Cheeseburger.
The problem is that you are assuming in that analysis that there is a
> Hello.
>
>> The letter from Subway Systems seems clear enough. Unless you can show
>> that the particular franchisee concerned participated in the voucher
>> promotion, but then refused to honour the voucher, you have no basis on
>> which to prosecute them.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> So, if McDonalds had an advertisement for a "$1 Cheeseburger" on TV
> throughout Sydney which was ONLY subsequently honored in their Auburn
> (Sydney) store, because I could not prove that my local Bondi
> McDonalds created the ad, they can reject all purchases wanting that
> $1 Cheeseburger.
legal entity called McDonalds, that it is that entity that is doing the
advertising, and that it is that entity that is refusing to honour the
promotion.
That assumption is not valid.
>
> Even though most normal people would think: "Hmmm....McDonalds add on
> TV for $1 Cheeseburger....And there is a McDonalds down the road in
> Bondi close to where I live...hmmm...I'll go and buy a $1 Cheeseburger
> now".
>
> Only to be rebuffed by the Counter staff and told "Sorry, only the
> AUBURN store has this promotion."
>
> Seems like the law is an ass, if this is the case....
should be compelled to comply with every advertisement issued by any
other store trading under the name Subway?
Should every John Smith Hardware store be compelled to honour every
promotion by any other John Smith Hardware store?
You were perhaps under the impression that Subway is like Coles, in that
it is a single legal entity with numerous outlets. But it's not.
Sylvia.
Noodle
Sep 11, 2011, 7:06:57 PM9/11/11
to
Hi, Sylvia.
> Should every John Smith Hardware store be compelled to honour every
> promotion by any other John Smith Hardware store?
Good point.
> You were perhaps under the impression that Subway is like Coles, in that
> it is a single legal entity with numerous outlets. But it's not.
Yes, I did.
I now see my assumption was wrong.
Cheers,
Noodle.
> Should every John Smith Hardware store be compelled to honour every
> promotion by any other John Smith Hardware store?
> You were perhaps under the impression that Subway is like Coles, in that
> it is a single legal entity with numerous outlets. But it's not.
I now see my assumption was wrong.
Cheers,
Noodle.
N
Sep 12, 2011, 6:13:02 AM9/12/11
to
--
N
0 new messages