MOTA-, Inc.

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MA1'TR OF MOTA- , INC., ET AL.

Docket C-2503. Orr, Jan. 11,. 197.' Denial of corporate respondent's petition to reopen proceeding-. Appeararues For the Commission: Joseph Hickrnan. For the respondents: James T. Blanton Fort Worth, Tex. and Stein Milchell Mezines Wash., D.

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S PETITION TO REOPEN PROCEEDINGS After having fully considered the Petition to Reopcn Proceedings fied on behalf of respondent corporation MOTA- , Inc., and the , Consider an advertisement for air conditioners that represented them to be unique beau,* of being painlLd with red, white, and gre€n stripes- Certainly the ronsumer would be left thinking that the advertise air conditiuner wa. unique:' but the Commi,, ion might be at pains to show that such a rl"im was materi"l nor Cdn "-e imagine a ""ne advertiser spending money to make it. I!niquenes. is ubviously both an attrihute in itslf and one facet uf broader eat..gories of product char.."teristics, such as pri(' , perlonnance, and wan-duty tenus. Order Answer filed by the Bureau of Consumer Protection, the Commission has determined that respondent's Petition should he denied. The Commission finds no changed conditions of fact or law which would justify reopening the order under Rule 3.72(b)(2). The Commssion does not find that the change in corporate ownership of MOTA- , Inc. justifies reopening at this time. The Commission also finds that the ten individuals who purchased the corporation from its former owner, the individual respondent, knew of the existence of the agreement between the corporation and the Commission s staff before they purchased the corporation. Knowing of the existence of an agreement between the corporation and the Commission s staff, an agreement whose terms the staff of the Commission was precluded, by directive of the Commission, from divulging prior to offcial Commission action thereon, it was incumbent upon the purchasers to detennne from the seller whether those terms might in any way affect their decision to purchase. If the seller failed to disclose the terms of the agreement to the purchasers, or misrepresented them, then that is clearly a matter to be resolved between purcha. ers and vendor, and does not justify modification of a consent order against the corporation. Petitioner s other arguments do not demonstrate that the public interest would be served by reopening the order. Accordingly, It is ordered That respondent's petition be, and it hereby is, denied.