Bob Armstrong
03-30-2009, 08:11 AM
The redesigned CFC Website now notes 4 different CFC websites: Webzine, Equipment Store; Book Store and Legacy.
It is clear from the Book Store site, that the customer is dealing with Amazon Books, and that CFC is some sort of agent, attracting customers for Amazon.
But the Equipment Store website is of some concern. All indications from the website and buying a product, are that the customer is dealing with the CFC, and that CFC is the principal retailer.
However, as I understand it, CFC has sold its equipment and supplies business to a company called FEN, located in Kapuskasing. Part of the arrangement was that CFC would advertise FEN products, and would get a commission for the customers purchasing from FEN, who came through the CFC website ( I assume this is still the case, since there has been no public notice of CFC terminating this arrangement and going back into the equipment business ).
My concern is with CFC being engaged in misleading advertising.
An unknowing customer would, from all information on the website, as far as I have been able to tell ( am I missing something? ), never know about FEN. All indications are that the purchaser is dealing with CFC as the retailer. If there is a product problem that arises for the purchaser, they will believe that they have the Canadian national chess organization as the party from whom they seek redress. Won't they be surprised when CFC tells them that the principal they contracted with is FEN, and that any dispute must go to FEN. CFC denies any liability on the basis that it is just an agent, advertising FEN's products and facilitating ordering from FEN. We will have one unhappy customer, and CFC's reputation will be in for some damage.
This does not seem right to me ( I did try to bring this to CFC's attention after it entered into the commission arrangements with Amazon and FEN. but to no avail ).
What needs to be done?
I think a simple referencing on the website of FEN as the principal retailer would be sufficient to ward off claims of misleading advertising against CFC. This is what CFC has done with the book store aspect of their commission arrangements. It is likely satisfactory for the equipment store too. The possibility of lawsuits against CFC for their involvement in these commission arrangements is so small, that no legal opinion need, in my view, be obtained to look into this further, and provide strict legal advice about specific wording needed to limit CFC liability. Simple transparency as to the equipment store should suffice.
Bob
It is clear from the Book Store site, that the customer is dealing with Amazon Books, and that CFC is some sort of agent, attracting customers for Amazon.
But the Equipment Store website is of some concern. All indications from the website and buying a product, are that the customer is dealing with the CFC, and that CFC is the principal retailer.
However, as I understand it, CFC has sold its equipment and supplies business to a company called FEN, located in Kapuskasing. Part of the arrangement was that CFC would advertise FEN products, and would get a commission for the customers purchasing from FEN, who came through the CFC website ( I assume this is still the case, since there has been no public notice of CFC terminating this arrangement and going back into the equipment business ).
My concern is with CFC being engaged in misleading advertising.
An unknowing customer would, from all information on the website, as far as I have been able to tell ( am I missing something? ), never know about FEN. All indications are that the purchaser is dealing with CFC as the retailer. If there is a product problem that arises for the purchaser, they will believe that they have the Canadian national chess organization as the party from whom they seek redress. Won't they be surprised when CFC tells them that the principal they contracted with is FEN, and that any dispute must go to FEN. CFC denies any liability on the basis that it is just an agent, advertising FEN's products and facilitating ordering from FEN. We will have one unhappy customer, and CFC's reputation will be in for some damage.
This does not seem right to me ( I did try to bring this to CFC's attention after it entered into the commission arrangements with Amazon and FEN. but to no avail ).
What needs to be done?
I think a simple referencing on the website of FEN as the principal retailer would be sufficient to ward off claims of misleading advertising against CFC. This is what CFC has done with the book store aspect of their commission arrangements. It is likely satisfactory for the equipment store too. The possibility of lawsuits against CFC for their involvement in these commission arrangements is so small, that no legal opinion need, in my view, be obtained to look into this further, and provide strict legal advice about specific wording needed to limit CFC liability. Simple transparency as to the equipment store should suffice.
Bob