Koscot Interplanetary, Inc
Volume 87 · 87 F.T.C. 419
Cited as a basis for the FTC Notice of Penalty Offenses on Money-Making Opportunities (2021).
franchise business opportunity
Cite this decision
Koscot Interplanetary, Inc, 87 F.T.C. 419 (1976). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v087-0055
Report an error in this record (decision id v087-0055)
Cited by 4 later FTC decisions
Notice of Penalty Offense references are listed separately above in the existing Phase 1 links.
- PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL cited_neutral
- GROLIER, INCORPORATED, ET AL cited_neutral
- PEPSICO, INC., ET AL cited_neutral
- PEPSICO, INC., ET AL discussed
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IN THE MATTER OF KOSCOT INTERPLANETARY, INC., ET AL.
CLARIFYI:-G ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT A:-D SEC. 2 OF THE CLA YTON ACT Docket 8888. Final Order V01). 18 1975-Clarifying Order, Mar. , 1976 Order clarifying previous Commission order issued Nov. 18, 1975 86 F. 1106 , 40 R. 60044, because of apparent misunderstanding as to the significance of order compliance Paragraph VI. Paragraph VI, which requires respondents to denver copies of Section II of the order to several individuals, is construed by the Commission to impose an obligation on each named respondent only to notify persons who are now or may in the future be acting on behalf of that particular respondent. Further, order denies petition of individual respondent Ben Bunting for reconsideration and modification of said order with respect to himself. ORDER DE:-YING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Individual respondent Ben Bunting has filed a petition for reconsideration of the Commission s order in this matter, asking that Paragraph VI of the order be deleted as to him. While the Commission does not believe that modification of the order is necessary or appropriate, we will take this opportunity to clarify the meaning of Paragraph VI inasmuch as there is apparently some misunderstanding as to its significance, Paragraph VI requires several named respondents, including respondent Bunting, to deliver a copy of Section II of the Commission order to:
* * * all present and future salespeople, franchisees, distributors, participants, or other persons engaged in the saJe of franchises, distributorships, products, or services on behalf of respondents, and secure from each such person a signed statement acknowledging receipt thereof.
The Commission construes the foregoing paragraph to impose an obligation on each named respondent only to notify persons who are acting on behalf of that particularnow or may in the future be respondent. Thus, respondent Bunting has no obligation under the order to make notification to salespeople of the corporation Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., since he is no longer affliated with the company. However, if respondent Bunting should in the future establish a new business involving salespeople operating on his behalf, Paragraph VI of the order would then impose a notification obligation upon him. , in the future, the respondent Bunting chooses to constitute such a new business he may petition the Commission to reopen and modify 420 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO:-S Order 87 F.
Paragraph VI of the order if he believes modification to be warranted by changed circumstances or the public interest, pursuant to Section 72 of the Commission s Rules of Practice. At present, however, no reason has been shown as to why any modification of Paragraph VI, as construed herein, is required.
Therefore It is ordered That respondent's petition for reconsideration be, and it hereby is, denied.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, INC., ET AL. 421 421 Complaint