False-packaging verdict shocks cosmetics men

Press, 31 October 1981, Page 9

False-packaging verdict shocks cosmetics men

NZPA London Britain’s cosmetic industry was shocked this week by a jury’s decision that the manufacturers of a moisturising cream had infringed the Trades Description Act by packaging the product in a jar that contained a false bottom, although the weight was correctly given on the label.

The jury decided that A. and F. Pears had infringed the act because -the plastic jar was 30 per cent larger than the volume of cream it contained.

“Everybody in the industry is astounded by this case,” said Aubrey Ridley-Thomp-son, spokesman for the large chemists chain, Boots. “This kind of design has been used for years and many products will have to be changed if this case is upheld on appeal. It will cost

a terrific amount of money, millions of pounds,” he said. The cosmetic industry will not be the only one to be affected.

“The food industry is well into the game, too,” said the “Daily Express.” . “The exquisite pot of marmalade,- with Victorian hunting scenes on the lid, tempts many a tourist. And inside . . a tiny plastic container of marmalade.

"Maddening but' legal — provided the manufacturer has supplied the contents promised in the small print,” said the paper. But the jury at Croydon Crown Court, in south London, decided that although the volume and'weight was clearly displayed on the cream jar, it was considered to be misleading as the false bottom left an empty space inside the jar.

David Tench, legal officer of the Consumers’ Association, praised the jury for showing some “good oldfashioned common sense.” The case was described as a legal precedent by an official of Lambeth Council, which brought the prosecution.

He said the manufacturers would have to state what steps they intended to take to remedy the situation when the court resumed today for sentencing.

But Mr Ridley-Thompson commented: “I don’t feel defrauded when I buy a box of chocolates and find a lot of corrugated paper inside. “This verdict means that instead of buying your wife or girlfriend an attractive box of chocolates, we may in the future have to hand her loose chocolates in’a paper bag.”