Opinion ID: 1475663
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: As to False Statements Obviously False

Text: During the oral argument, it was suggested that any one driving by an unpretentious night club displaying the sign Stork Club in or near San Francisco, would hardly assume that the place was in any way affiliated with the celebrated New York establishment. It may well be true that a prudent and worldly-wise passerby would not be so deceived. The law, however, protects not only the intelligent, the experienced, and the astute. It safeguards from deception also the ignorant, the inexperienced, and the gullible. That is the teaching of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it has been followed in this and in other circuits. In Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Education Society, 302 U.S 112, 116, 58 S.Ct. 113, 115, 82 L.Ed. 141, the court said: The fact that a false statement may be obviously false to those who are trained and experienced does not change its character, nor take away its power to deceive others less experienced. There is no duty resting upon a citizen to suspect the honesty of those with whom he transacts business. Laws are made to protect the trusting as well as the suspicious. The best element of business has long since decided that honesty should govern competitive enterprises, and that the rule of caveat emptor should not be replied upon to reward fraud and deception.    To fail to prohibit such evil practices would be to elevate deception in business and give to it the standing and dignity of truth. Another classical statement of the rule is to be found in Florence Mfg. Co. v. J. C. Dowd & Co., 2 Cir., 178 F. 73, 75: The law is not made for the protection of experts, but for the public  that vast multitude which includes the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous, who, in making purchases, do not stop to analyze, but are governed by appearance and general impressions. [12]