We can say things that could be offensive to other people.
Verbal, written, clothing, songs, art, dance, gestures
1. Gestures, movements, articles of clothing
2. Burning the American Flag
Fighting words, likely to start a riot
Lewd and obscene speech (very difficult to apply. states decide. more based on locality rules)
Not as highly protected
Speech that advertises a product or service for profit or business services (labeling is included)
Protected by the constitution, but not to the same extent as individual speech.
Distinguished between market places of ideas, and a market place of goods and services
1. Is the advertising lawful and not misleading?
2. Does the gov't have a substantial interest in regulating speech?
3. Does the regulation directly advance their interest?
4. Is the regulation narrowly tailored? (suitable alternatives)
One of the first federal agencies, authorized to indentify "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices"
Goals include: promote competition, protecting consumers
The have authority.
Explicit Statements made about a product, words or pictures.
Example: Cambells soup ad with all the vegetables at the top or the Volvo car commerical with the monster trucks running it over
Ads are deceptive because of what the ad does not say, that a reasonable consumer would find important.
Example: AOL Free Trials, you have to cancel on your own, but they wont tell you that; 2 for 1 deals
Make up the second opinions about a product. They need to be honest, and experts need to be real.
Example: Toothpaste commercials w/ fake dentists.
Passed in 1946
Gives competitors the right to sue each other for false and misleading advertising
The ad its self is mostly (literally false)
The court will prove this without proof of customers being misled
A substantial number of consumers were actually misled or damaged.
At least fifteen percent actually believed the ad.
-You purchase goods at your own risk, there wasn't much you could do if it didn't work.
-Mid 20th century the court decided that there was SOME liability
Liability without regard to fault or intent
If you make an "unreasonably dangerous" product, then you are liable because you made it.
Focus on the dangerous product not on the behavior of the company
The problem with traditional contract law used with the products liability.
-2 parties involved have privity of contract, so only they have duties and rights to be sued upon. No other person can sue.
-Example: someone being burnt on someone elses toaster couldnt sue
Does away with Rule of Privity
If you are injured by the product, even though you didn't buy it, you can still sue. You don't have to be in contract to sue.
-A person who deals in goods of the kind involved in the sale.
-A person whose occupation indicates that he has special knowledge or skill regading goods involved (optomotrist selling contacts)
-Someone who hires a merchant to act on his behalf
Under the UCC, merchants selling products make this. The goods are going to be fit for thier ordinary purpose.
-Any foreseeable user can sue for injuries (even third parties)
Can avoid doing warrant of merchantability
You have to say something like "we can't gauruntee merchantability"
Can be spoken, not written
Parties are free to set what is the damage that the breach of contract is worth.
Liquidated damages amount- sets howmuch is in the contract in case there is a breach- the dollar amount
The courts give the plaintiff benefit of the bargain
" What was the value of the contract and how much of that value did you get?"