How metadata is presented to you depends on your web browser and potentially on which search engine you used and how that search engine works - including that it is not presented at all.
In other words, does metadata make a statement or representation at all and, if so, what?
In the case of <title> it is somewhat clear. Anything else muddier still.
Is there any factual basis to this? Obviously someone who is unable to meet their financial obligations makes an undesirable tenant, whether formally bankrupt or not.
I’m not a lawyer but defamation may not apply in private communication with you i.e. your reputation cannot be harmed no matter what they say about you to you. It is you therefore who are publishing claims about yourself that may be false.
That it would be since the REIQ is not a member and your issue is with a Qld franchised business! Ref my earlier post.
As Harcourts inexplicably appears to want to hear nothing about the behaviour of their franchisee but perhaps prioritises fees from their Caloundra franchisee, REIA is equally disinterested since the ‘offending office’ is not in membership with them. I notice that some individual Harcourts offices seem to have their own memberships in REI_ but it is not obvious there is an overarching corporate membership.
I doubt whether the judiciary really wants to decide on matters regarding puffery. Hopefully the difficulties of doing that are fairly obvious e.g. no universally agreed complete set of relevant attributes, no objective standard for comparing attributes.
Perhaps the law could be changed so that puffery must be labelled as puffery, where the text attributes of the word puffery must be identical to that of the puffery and it must be adjacent to the puffery e.g.
instead of “Best Real Estate Agent in Queensland”
it must be “Puffery: Best Real Estate Agent in Queensland”.
Not to me it doesn’t, if a web publisher (I have been doing it since 1995) wants a certain phrase to be published on Google he intentionally enters it into the meta tags Title & Description.
The above Google screen image is the factual result of doing that, I don’t see that its open to any interpretation.
Am I bankrupt, no I am certainly not.
In any event a bankrupt and his family have to live somewhere, and if the rent is modest there should be no problem in paying the rent. Also a bankrupt can earn up to around $52,000 PA before any contribution has to be made to the creditors.
You are correct, defamatory matter has to be communicated to a third party to be actionable (I have been involved in 3, no sorry 4, defamation proceedings). Self publication is not actionable and it is my choice to do so because it is evidence, and because I know the material to be entirely false.
Do you mean like a car offered for sale with tags including Holden Ford Mazda, Nissan, Jeep, Fiat, Mitsubishi, … , … should also be prosecuted? A particular vehicle can rarely be all of them, although historically some have been two, such as the Lotus Cortina. Is it misrepresentation in that context or a means of attracting hits and possibly even a tyre kicker through that seriously annoying practice?
Yes it can be an undesirable method of obtaining hits and not encouraged by Google if the meta terms do not match the body of the page, I would imagine Google may lower the ranking of that page.
It’s a misrepresentation but not an actionable one because a viewer is not going to be tricked into buying a Holden that has a meta tag saying Its a Ferrari.
If the holden has a meta tag to say it has done 45,000 km when the true figure is 75,000 km, and then someone is tricked into buying it thinking its only done 45,000, then that is an actionable misrepresentation.
One!!!. that’s palpably ridiculous. To search White Pages is also ridiculous because you have to know the actual name.
I often travel to Caloundra as my daughter lives there, it’s a thriving and popular destination and is the southern hub of the Sunshine Coast Qld. I know as a fact that there is a lot more than one.
Perhaps you would like to visit Yellow Pages and count up the numbers listed there:
I count 20 or so, and there are ALSO the ones close but within the Caloundra Municipality, such as Golden Beach, Pelican Waters and Kings Beach and it goes on…
Is the case, as outlined in the above post, as they only have agency, then their agency would have the most awards (or one could also say the least awards) for any Harcourts agency in Caloundra. Their statement about their agency is therefore correct, but somewhat meaningless.
I refer you back to my post on Truth in Advertising in which the following were not considered breaches of the ACL because they were not definitive (ie considered puffery):
“The best property listings in Melbourne are on Domain”
The Domain app is the “#1 property app in Australia” because it allows the user to view “the best property listings in Melbourne”
The Domain app is the “#1 property app in Australia”
The Harcourts claim could be seen as merely puffery. My reply was to the quote you used of @phb’s that clearly only referred to the Harcourt agencies “This is very easy to defend. They may be the only Harcourts Agency in Caloundra and therefore they would automatically be the most awarded in the Harcourts business empire in Caloundra”. Is the claim they make exaggerated, probably and so like I said could be puffery as most reasonable people might not believe it.
This is not defending Harcourts, I am just pointing out that it would need to be tested. What you believe and what a Court or Tribunal may find could be different or could support your claims.
Well I have never looked at it that way, and if Harcourts Caloundra mean it to be in that context (which I don’t think they are) then its worse, as its clearly an attempt at trickery.
Your google excerpt states "Most Awarded Real Estate Agency - Harcourts Caloundra’. This does not define what the most awarded is against. It is ambigious and one could assume it refers to Harcourt only estate agencies. As there is only one in Caloundra, the statement, while correct, is meanlingless as outlined above.
As also outlined earlier, if it refers to all agencies including Harcourts, it is very easy for a company to award itself with anything such as employees of the day, award for days of positive cashflow, award for a good looking website, award for mowing the grass and the list goes on. Again, any statement is meaningless unless it is defined.
If the metadata said (most awarded Sunshine Coast Real Estate Agency by XYZ industry association), then there is benchmark to be measured and compared with others. As the statement is generic (not definitive), it means nothing and is pure marketing talk.
That was the statement I made earlier and what I referred to above.
It isn’t one or the other until that has been tested in court.
You can buy “awards” online. I don’t think “awards” mean much. Kellogg’s Award more likely. /cynicism
I wouldn’t take the claim seriously unless it mentioned a specific and recognised Award.
If they claim to have been awarded a Miles Franklin Award for real estate novelist - and they haven’t - then sue the bastards. If it came out of a cereal packet then move on.
Yes having been up against many SC’s and a QC’s I am well aware of how they can have the Court believe something that is far from reality.
But why would I do that in this matter. I have been told to “move on” again by “person”, seems he or she wants me outa here, and the discourse is of no value unless it is tested in court.
