![]() Thus, applying Alabama law in Cathbake Investment Co. Some jurisdictions do permit resort to parol evidence to prove the existence of a "latent ambiguity" as an initial matter. 1985) (applying Georgia law) see also Certain British Underwriters at Lloyds of London v. The second provides that the guarantee will remain in effect upon payment of the stated renewal fee "starting February 1973 and each February thereafter." Even more devastating to Orkin's argument is the third of those contracts, which provides that the guarantee "will be effective for an initial period" "and thereafter for a period of Life years, so long as " the stated renewal payment is made "annually." Given the plain language of these agreements, we reject as unreasonable Orkin's suggestion that they are silent as to the duration of the stated annual renewal fees. 7 The first of those contracts we have quoted provides that the "Guaranty will be effective so long as payment is made in accordance with the Terms and Conditions" of the agreement. One additional fact not emphasized by the Commission is that each contract contains language which further indicates that renewal of the guarantee (by payment of the stated fee) is to continue, so long as the covered premises are not structurally modified. The ALJ entered an order requiring Orkin to roll back all fees in pre-1975 contracts to the levels specified in those contracts. The ALJ found specifically that (1) that Orkin's pre-1975 contracts did provide for a fixed renewal fee and that Orkin had breached these contracts by attempting to raise the renewal fees (2) these breaches of contract could constitute a violation of section 5 (3) there was substantial consumer injury (4) consumers could not reasonably have avoided this injury and (5) there were no countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. The Administrative Law Judge responsible for the case ruled in favor of the Commission. ![]() Orkin filed a cross-motion for summary decision on the ground that conduct which is not alleged to be deceptive cannot constitute an "unfair act or practice" within the meaning of section 5. Instead, John Raymond, Orkin's Director of Administrative Operations instructed Orkin's branch managers, by way of an Augmemorandum, to handle complaints in the following manner:Īfter conducting some pretrial discovery, counsel for the FTC supporting the complaint ("complaint counsel") moved for a summary decision pursuant to Rule 3.24 of the Commission's Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings, 16 C.F.R. But customers were not directly informed of these exceptions in the form letter sent to complaining customers. As an additional part of its "accommodation program," Orkin developed some limited exceptions to its across-the-board increases in the renewal fees for pre-1975 contracts. In a closing sentence, the letter says, "We appreciate your concern and hope that you now understand our position and will submit your renewal payment to keep your coverage in force." Record, Vol. ![]() It further explained that although the pre-1975 contracts "did not specifically mention increases," the increase was "both consistent with law and reasonable business standards," given the losses Orkin had absorbed. In light of customer complaints, Orkin developed what it refers to as an "accommodation program." In a form letter sent to complaining customers, Orkin attributed the increase to inflation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |