Summary

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II,  Federal Trade Commission v. Mary Carter Paint Company…

“ In administering § 5 in the context of the many elusive questions raised by modern advertising, it is the duty of the Commission to speak and rule clearly so that law-abiding businessmen may know where they stand. In proscribing a practice uncomplained of by the public, effectively harmless to the consumer, allowed by the Commission's long-established policy statement, and only a hairbreadth away from advertising practices that the Commission will continue to permit, I think that the Commission in this instance has fallen far short of what is necessary to entitle its order to enforcement. ”
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II,  Federal Trade Commission v. Mary Carter Paint Company…

“ Finally, it is not without irony that the Commission, presumably seeking to protect the consumer from any unfounded ultimate conclusions that a can of Mary Carter is as good as its high-priced rivals, rejected an offer of proof from the company that a single can of Mary Carter is scientifically equal or superior to the leading paints that sell at the same per-can price level without giving bonus cans. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature