Farmers fined for selling old TV as new

National retailer Farmers Trading Company has been fined $10,000 for selling a returned and repaired television set as new.

The retail chain said it now had systems in place to ensure the mistake, which breached the Fair Trading Act, cannot be repeated.

At the sentencing in the Christchurch District Court today, Judge Noel Walsh said he accepted Farmers' actions were not deliberate and there was no fraudulent intent, Christchurch Court News website reported.

But after the defended hearing in January he rejected the company's claim that it was a reasonable mistake.

The company was co-operative when the Commerce Commission made its inquiries after the complaint by Christchurch woman Margaret Fitness.

It was important that the stores had a policy in place for dealing with second hand, returned, or repaired goods.

Judge Walsh said: "Although it didn't have a written policy at the time of the incident, (the store's electrical goods manager, Jamie McEwan) gave evidence about his understanding of the company's policy at the time, which is consistent with the written policy the company has since implemented."

The company defended the charge of engaging in conduct that was liable to mislead the public about the nature and characteristics of goods.

Judge Walsh found it guilty in a written decision released in May.

Under the law, the maximum penalty was $200,000.

Mrs Fitness bought a Philips 32-inch flat-screen television from Farmers at the Eastgate shopping centre for $500 in November 2006.

Documents with the set indicated it had previously been sold at Rangiora but the customer had returned it when it stopped working.

The set was repaired and sold as new.

The company replaced the set with an $1100 model, apologised, and sent Mrs Fitness a $50 gift voucher.

For the company, counsel Melissa Borcoski said it was an isolated incident that affected only one television and one consumer, and there was little financial detriment to the customer because of the replacement television she received.

The Crown argued that the company had no way of tracking items such as the repaired television and a mistake like this was inevitable.

The company had failed to take proper steps to investigate the history of the television despite indications it was not new.

The Crown also argued Farmers was a large organisation which had the resources to implement a compliance programme but had still offended.

The defence argued that wilful or deliberate falsity was an important consideration and in this case the offending was at the low end.

Judge Walsh noted that Farmers had a conviction in 1987 for false labelling of the country of origin on children's clothing it sold.

Today, he took notice of comparable cases, and fined the company $10,000.

- NZPA