Question 39

No, because the claim is false

Advertising a house as 'new' when it is actually 17 years old is misleading and constitutes a false statement. Such an advertisement can create unrealistic expectations for potential buyers, which violates ethical advertising standards.

A) Yes, because newness is a subjective opinion and a question of degree

While newness may be viewed subjectively, the specific age of a property is an objective fact that cannot be misrepresented. Thus, stating a house is 'new' when it is actually 17 years old does not fall under subjective interpretation and is misleading.

B) Yes, because it is an example of harmless puffing

Harmless puffing refers to exaggerated claims that are not meant to be taken literally. However, claiming a 17-year-old house is 'new' is not an exaggeration but a falsehood that misrepresents the product, making it not harmless.

C) No, because the age of a house must be stated exactly in advertising

While accuracy is important in advertising, the key issue here is not merely about stating the age exactly but avoiding false representations. The advertisement improperly classifies the house as 'new,' which is misleading regardless of how the age is expressed.

D) No, because the claim is false

This is the correct option because advertising the house as 'new' is a blatant misrepresentation of its actual age. Such false claims can lead to legal repercussions and damage the credibility of the licensee.

Conclusion

The advertisement is illegal because it presents false information, which is a violation of advertising standards. Option D directly addresses the core issue of misleading representation, while the other options fail to recognize the legal and ethical implications of such a statement. All other choices either misinterpret the nature of advertising claims or incorrectly justify the misleading statement.