Upheld

The ASA was concerned by Jean Patrique's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.

We noted the e-mail stated "Hurry ... order now to take advantage of this incredible offer before stocks run out!!", which we considered made clear any limited availability. We also noted, however, the complainant had been able to order the item and we therefore considered he would expect to receive the advertised product. We noted the complainant received a substitute item but, we understood, it was of lesser value and did not arrive until more than 30 days after he sent his order. We also noted the advertised product continued to appear as being 'in stock' on the advertiser's website several months after the promotional e-mail was sent.

Because we had not received a response from Jean Patrique, we did not know why the complainant did not receive the advertised product he ordered. We considered, however, the ad should have made clear if Jean Patrique might not be able to supply the advertised product, or an equivalent, at the advertised price within a reasonable period and also if they intended to provide substitute products if those ordered were unavailable. However, the e-mail should not have been sent at all if it was the case that the product was unavailable. Because the ad did not make clear Jean Patrique might send a substitute product and, we understood, the replacement item was not of equivalent value to the advertised product, and because it was received more than 30 days after the order was sent, we concluded that the ad breached the Code.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.7 (Unreasonable delay), 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Qualification), 3.28 and 3.29 (Availability) and 9.2.8 and 9.4 (Distance selling).