Misleading deals

Today's deal at BigDeal.sg had the following offer:

While the offer doesn't look too special to me (also because I don't eat bak kwa), the claim that you get a 72% discount (below the Buy! button) is a bit misleading. While some may think that yes, they are paying $2 for $7 of discount, you need to factor in the whole purchase for it to be accurate. Put it in another way - if you buy this deal and do not use it, are you getting any discounts?

In actual fact, you are paying $21 ($19 + $2) for $27 of bakkwa, so the discount is only 22.22%, not 72%.   

This reminds me of Citibank's Gourmet Pleasures. They advertised it as a "100% Voucher Rebate", and on the newspapers, they said "100% dining rebates. Your next meal free. Powered by Citi." So they issue vouchers that is worth 100% of your bill - for example, if you spend $100, they will issue you $100 worth of vouchers. 

I fell into their trap in April, when I treated my parents to Mad for Garlic, a restaurant at Suntec. Thinking that it was really a 100% rebate for your next meal, which is effectively a 50% discount if you take both meals into consideration, we went there for dinner. When they gave me the vouchers (in multitudes of $10), I read it carefully and realised that 1) you can only use one voucher with one main course, and 2) you can only use a maximum of two vouchers per meal. While you may argue that yes, it is actually a 100% rebate but spread over several meals, how Citibank advertised it - "Get your next meal free" - is extremely misleading. No matter how you view it, the next meal is not free at all!

Then they put a disclaimer "Voucher terms and conditions apply", which they will obviously rely on if anyone complains.

It is one thing to make a potentially misleading statement and then clarify it in the T&Cs, but it is another thing to make a blatantly false statement and then use the T&Cs as defence. Duh.