Henry Kaye drops appeal

Henry Kaye is no longer appealing.

In many ways.

Property spruiker Henry Kaye has dropped an appeal against a Federal Court finding that he and his company breached the Trade Practices Act by claiming he could turn ordinary Australians into millionaires.

......

"The ACCC is pleased that Mr Kaye has dropped his appeal against the Federal Court's decision, which still stands as a warning to all other property investment spruikers and the general public that the ACCC will not hesitate to take court action where it feels that consumers have been deceived by untruthful advertising," ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel said.

Source: SMH, http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Kaye-drops-action-over-millionaire-hype/2005/04/05/1112489458552.html

I do wonder about Graeme Samuel's statement though - it suggests to me that Kaye is being punished for being caught saying dishonest things rather than for dishonest actions.....

Is it simply teaching people to become better at not getting caught?

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
So what was the final outcome for him. I think NII has gone now (correct me if I'm wrong), but what does that mean for him/them?
 
Dare to dream

breached the Trade Practices Act by claiming he could turn ordinary Australians into millionaires.

So does that mean saying "you could be a millionaire" is against the Trade Practices Act; or "I can show you how to become a millionaire" or is it just Henry Kay saying that, that is illegal?

Probably the reporting isn't too precise about what he was guilty of. How do you find someone guilty if he said, "could ..."? Didn't any of his "ordinary" people become a millionaire? Ever? Not one?

I'm not defending Henry Kay here. I had nothing to do with him and, as a late-comer, I'm sure he was before my time anyway. I am more concerned about the principal of convicting someone for saying, "you could do better" [if you join my investment fund, read Jan Somers' books, eat at GeoffW's (sorry to use you as an example in a Henry Kay post), and so on.]



Greg
 
I believe that he was saying "you could be a millionaire in one year", and defining that by having $1M worth of property- even if the bank owned 95% of that.
 
That's no different from Steve McNight's claim that he made on TT (or was it ACA). His claimed he could make 10 or so average people property millionaires within a year only to later qualify that by saying 1M in property under management.

Surely Kaye was found guilty for a lot more than that......
 
Got cha

What I think is important here is to understand that the ACCC and ASIC were after Henry for quite some time.

But both authorities needed to find something that they could actually prosecute, and this breech is something they could.

ALL claims in marketing need to be able to be proven.

But the fact is that many companies are prosecuted for breeches in the Trade Practices Act.

For example one of my favourite companies, Flight Centre was recently forced to stop using their long term catch phrase “Lowest Airfares Guaranteed” because it was deemed “false and misleading”. They didn’t actually guarantee they had the lowest airfares, they just promised that if you found one cheaper elsewhere they would match it. It’s a technical point and Flight Centre could easily have got upset and tried to fight it, but they just said, “fair cop” and got on with it so the news story was buried on page 93 and left to die.

However the ACCC’s prosecution of HK was the final nail in his coffin – whereas with a company like Flight Centre with an enviable reputation for service and meeting it’s service delivery promise virtually nobody noticed and it certainly has had no impact on it’s business or turnover.

So it all comes back to intent, integrity and reputation. My guess is that if HK was delivering in all other areas of his business this would not have been much of a big deal, but because he wasn’t, and because many people by that time viewed him as dishonest and so on, it hurt him badly.

One of my favourite ads, on a bill board 100m from the Porsche dealership said, “Nobody ever gets out of a Masserati wanting to drive a Porsche!” I thought it was funny and cleaver but according to the Trade Practices act would have, in my opinion, been deemed false and misleading. For it to be true Masserati would have had to poll EVERY person who had EVER driven a Masserati and would have needed a 100% success rate at ensuring that nobody at that moment had ever wanted to drive a Porsche. And I am sure people wearing funny wigs could have argued for weeks on what constituted “nobody”, “ever”, and “wanting”.

I think the important thing is to always conduct ourselves with as much integrity that we can muster, go about our business with a genuine ideal of “doing it right” and if from time to time we make a mistake, or (like Masserati) were just trying to be clever and get tripped up, people, our clients, will forgive us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Les
Aceyducey said:
I do wonder about Graeme Samuel's statement though - it suggests to me that Kaye is being punished for being caught saying dishonest things rather than for dishonest actions.....

Is it simply teaching people to become better at not getting caught?

Saying dishonest things is often the first step towards ripping people off.
Why wouldn't it be a good thing that such things are prosecuted and discouraged?
 
I think the important thing is to always conduct ourselves with as much integrity that we can muster, go about our business with a genuine ideal of “doing it right” and if from time to time we make a mistake, or (like Masserati) were just trying to be clever and get tripped up, people, our clients, will forgive us.

Somehow I dont believe Kane ever thought like this, or maybe he did, but in his own self-serving, justifying ways.
 
This has been an interesting thread. Like many I never had any personal dealings with Kaye or attended any of his seminars, so can't comment from my own experience, but I do agree with Peter Spann's comments about context (what is your overall operation like) and integrity.

Incidentally, and this I CAN say from my own experience, I can tell you that I have found Peter Spann's book, "How you could build a $10 million property portfolio in just 10 years" an interesting and enlightening read.

Haven't finished yet (it's my train book), but so far it's had some great tips for beginners like myself!
 
I wonder how the Trade Practices Act applies to statements by various businesses that they are "No.1". Trawling through various businesses online this past week, I've found six companies in a particular field, that claim they are all No.1 :)

As they don't elaborate on how they come to this wonderful conclusion for their company and specifically what they are no.1 at, I take their "claims" with a grain of salt and a liberal dash of skepticism. Funny how no-one wants to be known as no.2,3,4,5......... :)
 
from my days studying the TPA so very long ago i recall that salepersons puffery was acceptable. a claim to be number 1 in a vague fashion is probably ok. a claim to make someone $1m in 12 months os very specific.
 
Jacque,

False advertising :)

That's why many companies use the term 'leading company' or 'one of the leading companies' or 'no.1 in widget sales' where truth can be proven or is relative.

Generally no action is taken unless false advertising is reported. There's not enough resources to track down every company making over the top statements :)

I do remember one company who relished being in 2nd place, but they tried harder.

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
Back
Top