Charles of the Ritz sold a cream that the company claimed would restore youth to the skin, regardless of skin condition or the age of the user. The FTC ordered the company to stop the advertising, claiming it was misleading. The company argued that it wasn’t misleading because “no straight-thinking person could believe that the cream would actually rejuvenate skin.” Is the company correct?
Answer to relevant QuestionsMontgomery Ward, a nationwide store chain, advertised certain products as unconditionally guaranteed. When customers bought these products, however, the packages contained printed guarantees that had conditions attached. The ...Barnes bought a television set from Janeway on credit. The price tag indicated a price of $ 400. Barnes signed a contract agreeing to pay for the set in 12 monthly payments of $ 40 each. The contract contained no other ...Harper bought a TV set from a department store and charged it on his charge account. When he failed to pay for the set, the store tried to repossess it. Can the store legally do so? While bicycling, Gray was injured as he was leaving a park. A driver, insured by Allstate, was driving into the park on the same road as Gray, in the opposite direction. There was no collision. The driver had veered toward ...Paul Revere Insurance Company solicited members of a county bar association to buy disability income insurance. The policy waived all age and health requirements and was open to all members. Blumberg, a new member, sent in ...
Post your question