Court Opinion

ID: 9624084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:50:20.295068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:04:25.320712
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice.
I concur. In so doing, it is the writer’s opinion that if the basic premise upon which appellants, in logic, must predicate their case, i. e., that advertising eyewear at a fixed price is a deception practiced as a lure and bait to the unwary and as such false and misleading, the part of the ordinance which this decision assails is really unnecessary, since our state statutes make such type of advertising a misdemeanor,1 and the remainder of the ordinance which is not struck down by this decision, which prohibits advertising that is “false or misleading,” in my opinion, would be within the power of the city to enforce. If such advertising as is involved in this case in fact is false and misleading, such fact would be provable by competent evidence adduced in a proper proceeding designed to end it. But for us, or counsel, or the city fathers, to assume, or assert or guess that advertising a fixed price is a fact that without more, proves another fact, i. e., inferior quality of a commodity, simply is to say that which I believe cannot be justified by any sort of syllogistic reasoning.

. Title 76-4 — 1, Utah Code Annotated 1953.