Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  misleading
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Legal framework on comparative advertising in the European Union, United States and India – a contemplative study

100%
Patil A. A.
Acta Iuris Stetinensis
|
2017
|
issue 20
EN
In any society, each individual acts in a manner so as to achieve his individual interests. When every individual acts in such a manner, there is bound to arise certain conflict of interests, which are to be resolved by law. Law therefore seeks to regulate the extent to which each individual can act in pursuit of his interests to increase the effective fulfillment of interests by each individual. Advertising has been with us in one form of another for the past 5000 years1. It plays a significant role in today’s economy and its presence in both print and electronic formats is likely to continue. One of the essential functions of advertising has been to persuade potential consumers that a particular product is superior to competing products. In today’s market, they frequently attempt the task not just by saying ‘our product is good’, but by saying ‘our product is better than the others’2– which is the basic concept behind comparative advertising. Comparative advertising is defined as advertising that “identifies the competition for the purpose of claiming superiority or enhancing perceptions of the sponsor’s brand”, as opposed to advertising that promotes one’s product solely on its own merits.3 The comparison may be of a specific attribute of the product, such as price or taste, or it may be a general, all- encompassing comparison. This type of advertising, i.e., taking the competitor head-on and comparing the respective products, to show the advertiser’s superiority, is one of the most controversial areas in advertising today. This becomes problematic essentially because advertising is not always truthful. Sometimes it relies on misleading claims and sometimes it engages in deceptive advertising to sell products.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Harmonization of the protection against misleading commercial practices: ongoing divergences in Central European countries

70%
MacGregor Pelikánová R.
Oeconomia Copernicana
|
2019
|
vol. 10
|
issue 2
239-252
EN
Research background: Modern European integration focuses on competition in the internal single market, embracing both competitiveness and consumer protection, and it aims at full harmonization in this arena. The hallmark, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive from 2005, aims to overcome diverse social, political, legal and economic traditions. Is the implied protection against misleading practices an opportunity or a threat for Central European Regions? Purpose of the article: The primary purpose is to comparatively describe and critically assess the transposed legal frameworks. The secondary purpose is to study and evaluate their coherence in the light of the case law and their impact in Central Europe, in particular whether it represents an opportunity or a threat for the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, i.e. boosting competitiveness and innovation along with consumer welfare. Methods: The cross-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional nature of this paper, and its dual purposes, implies the use of Meta-Analysis, of various interpretation techniques suitable for legal texts and judicial decisions, of the critical comparison and of a holistic assessment of approaches and impacts. Legislation and case law are explored and the yielded knowledge and data are confronted with a field search and case studies. The dominating qualitative research and data are complemented by the quantitative research and data. Findings & Value added: For over one decade, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive has required full harmonization of the protection against, among other items, misleading commercial practices, by legislatures and judges in the EU. The exploration pursuant to the two purposes suggests that this ambitious legislative and case law project entails a number of transposition approaches with varying levels of coherence, importance and impacts on the competitiveness and innovation of business and consumer welfare in Central Europe. Therefore, full harmonization should be either readjusted or relaxed.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Lying and Misleading within the Philosophy of Language: A Relevance-Theoretic Perspective

61%
Kisielewska-Krysiuk M.
Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies
|
2017
|
issue 26/2
79-100
XX
The aim of the paper is to examine the lying/misleading distinction from a relevance-theoretic perspective (cf. Sperber and Wilson [1986] 1995; 2004; Wilson and Sperber 2002; 2012). On standard accounts, the distinction is drawn parallel to the saying/implicating distinction. ‘What is said’, rooted in Grice (1975), has been subject to extensive discussion and numerous reanalyses under a variety of terms (see, for example, Recanati 1993; Bach 1994; Carston 2002), but no agreement has been reached as to the content of ‘what is said’ and the borderline between ‘what is said’ and ‘what is implicated’. Accordingly, within the philosophy of language the attempts to capture the lying/misleading distinction (Meibauer 2005; 2011; 2014ab; Saul 2012ab; Stokke 2013; 2016) rely on diff erent notions of ‘what is said’. The paper is an attempt to take a stance in the debate on the distinction under discussion from the perspective of Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson [1986] 1995; 2004; Wilson and Sperber 2012), which is a cognitive extension and modifi cation of Gricean model of communication and has been seriously concerned with the elaborated concept of what is said, known as ‘explicature’. One of our goals is to see how the relevance-theoretic understanding of “what is said” (Carston 2002; 2009; 2010; Carston and Hall 2012) aff ects the lying/misleading distinction, and the other way round. In an attempt to provide ground for the relevance-theoretic account, a critical overview and comparison of the existing approaches to lying and misleading is also presented.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Feigned Ignorance of Judas. Rhetorical Question from the Category interrogatio/ἐρώτημα in Matt 26:25

57%
Grochowski Z.
Verbum Vitae
|
2022
|
vol. 40
|
issue 4
1035-1054
EN
The article analyzes the utterance made by Judas in the Cenacle (1) in the context of his efforts to hand Jesus over to the chief priests (Matt 26:14–25). The fact that his question (Matt 26:25) includes the particle μήτι which assumes a negative response from the interlocutor (1–2) suggests that the disciple was unaware that he was betraying Jesus. Consequently, there is no shortage of positive opinions about Judas, expressed both in the past and today. Matthew’s narrative, however, says something different in this regard. The research problem is therefore seeking an answer to the question: how to interpret Judas’ words? The referenced various biblical translations (3.1) and claims of exegetes (3.2) quote the words of the apostles (Matt 26:22,25) and explain them in an ambiguous manner. The attempts to solve the problem shown in sections 2 and 3.1–2 do not provide a satisfactory conclusion. In the last section (4), the grammatical rules and narrative logic – which are clearly in contradiction – are supplemented with a rhetorical perspective, which leads to a definitive resolution of the dilemma. The synchronic approach applied to the pericope Matt 26:14–25 allows one to draw the conclusion that in Judas’ utterance one should identify a rhetorical question from the category interrogatio/ἐρώτημα whose function in Matt 26:25 is auferendae dissimulationis (“misleading pretense”). Many exegetes have decrypted Judas’ dishonest conduct, but it is only this article that precisely defines this rhetorical phenomenon.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.