Some misleading advertisements I’ve received in the mail have been offers to have met debt consolidated, with letters saying I am pre-approved for a large personal loan at a very low interest rate. It always looks too good to be true and after a quick inspection online, I find that others have received the same junk mail and down at the very bottom on the letter in fine print are words telling you that you are not really pre-approved and that the letter is just an offer from a third-party business that will shop your debt around to actual lenders to see if any of them are interested in giving you a loan. Unless you know what you are looking for, you’re not likely to even notice this fine print and so the junk mail is actually very misleading in the sense that it makes you think you are already pre-approved for a debt consolidation at a low rate when the truth is you are not. My opinion on the Court of Appeals decision in Citaramanis v. Hallowell is that Hallowell is correct in seeking to have damages overturned because the lack of a license did not in any well harm the Citaramnis, who were quite happy with the rental property. The license had more to do with state regulatory matters than it did with false advertising and Hallowell was not falsely advertising a licensed property in order to secure tenants but was rather advertising a property for rent and failing to have the property licensed. In other words there was no intention to mislead the public but rather a failure to comply with state legislation. This should not...

As the judge states, “a landlords failure to inform a tenant that the leased property is unlicensed does not, in itself, demonstrate that the tenant has suffered a diminution in the rental value of the property” (Hallowell v. Citaramanis, 1991). In this case, I agree with the majority because the Citarmanasis made no showing of actual damages as the judge indicated and there was really no reason to address it.
As for Mr. Park in US v. Park, while pest control can be difficult, Park should have done a more convincing job in showing that he had really done everything he could have done to fix the problems with his company’s warehouses and the issue of rodents having free reign of the place. As the CEO of the firm, he should be held liable for what the firm does, especially after being warned by the FDA that he and his firm are not in compliance with safety precautions and guidelines put forward by the FDA. Those rules are put out there to protect the public because the public will be consuming the food items being warehoused by Mr. Park’s company—and there is a rodent problem there. So the FDA comes in to protect the public and tell Mr. Park to fix the problem. If the problem is truly unfixable then the FDA is wrong to prosecute Mr. Park—but though pest control can be difficult it is not impossible and…