1. Argue that such label is admissible under the unfair commercial practices Directive 2005/29.
Unlike others, our chickens have not been raised with antibiotics.
In market competition firms have to plan those strategies, based on fair play in the field, which make them win the match (and that are the purpose of Directive2005/29).
Consumers obtain the determining information from direct observation, repetitive experience but also from producers, who try to supply them with affordable products to cover specific necessities. Assuming that the information written on the label is trustworthy, the consumer is offered natural raised chickens from the firm Organic Limited Chickens.
Firm’s aim is to raise sells bydifferentiating their chickens; there is where they have a point of advantage, because even the competence has the same features they are prioritizing distinctiveness.
What the Directive is looking for is these environment with high protection for consumers, thus the firm is contributing to the ground with fair and veracious information. Thus, the firm is ensuring the consumer not to lead into error.Other points which the Directive is trying to avoid are misleading omissions that usually precede distrust and unraveling effect; we don’t observe such behavior from the firm.
2. Argue that such label is NOT admissible under the unfair commercial practices Directive 2005/29.
What may not be admissible for the Directive 2005/29 is the first part of the sentence “unlike others…”, we know no firmis raising its chickens with antibiotics, so using such vocabulary the firm is trying to influence the purchaser making them think that Organic Limited Chickens is the only firm providing natural healthy chickens.
The D. 2005/29 grant this commercial practice as undue influence, it affects consumer behavior since their choice freedom is reduced (social welfare also decreases).
3. Is thelabel of this offer admissible under the unfair commercial practices Directive 2005/29?
The promoted product is now bought at 7.5€, before the promotion it was 2.5€ cheaper. In other words the firm is performing misleading actions: offering false information that leads into error the consumer who is convinced that the sauced chicken is cheaper now due to the added value of the “free” pottage.From the Directive 2005/29 the firm plays an anti-competitive practice; the label is cheating the consumers.
PART II- LABOR MARKET REGULATION
1. In light of the Spanish labor regulation, explain whether and how IBE Inc. could fire Albert and Carles employees.
In Albert’s Technical File behavior could be highlighted as chutzpah; addiction to Facebook and consumerist conduct when out forbusiness trips. What’s more he wants the firm to pay all his extras.
The contract ruled by the Spanish Labour Regulation establishes basic duties not only for employers but for employees.
When we talk about dismissals we must differentiate between those based on disciplinary grounds and objective grounds.
Albert’s behavior fits with first type of dismissal because we know he breached the contractby: lack of discipline, abuse of trust in performing the work and continuous and voluntary reduction of normal or agreed performance.
IBE Inc. has enough arguments to fire his employee. But due to the type of dismissal a letter stating the grounds of the sack must be delivered to Albert stating the date of termination with a limitation period of 60 days up to six month depending of the faultinfringement.
The termination of employment has to be a mutual agreement of the parties, valid and with the employee’s resignation.
The other dismissal case the firm has is motivated for the high opportunity cost Carles is occasioning. IBE knows that in the market there’re younger and better prepared potential employees who would like to work at lower salary.
Under the light of the Spanish...