Court Opinion

ID: 9463007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:55:58.861595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:53.686393
License: Public Domain

*652SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
PER CURIAM:
In its petition for rehearing, Korvettes expresses concern that our opinion will outlaw designations such as “apparel” and “hard goods” even though accurately affixed to goods purchased. That was not the nature of the system used by Korvettes. As we made clear in our opinion,
[f]or purchases made through central checkout, items were identified either as “Apparel” or “Hard Goods” or more specifically depending not on the nature of the goods bought at these locations but on which of these two identifications happened to be permanently affixed to the imprinters used for charge card transactions at the checkout center selected by the customer. In short, the designation meant nothing except that the customer had fortuitously picked a particular checkout register.
At p. 647 (footnotes omitted).
It was the arbitrary nature of Korvettes’ system that was presented by this appeal. For example, White’s best recollection of purchases made on December 16 was:
Okay. Looking at the date and looking at the calendar that I have here, which shows that Hanukkah started on December 15, I would say that some of these items are probably toys, and perhaps it’s all on one tape. I don’t know but perhaps everything was toys on there. If that is not so, I really don’t know.
App. 224 (emphasis added). Those purchases were identified on the charge slip as “Apparel.” App. 30.
We intimate no opinion as to whether the labels “hard goods” and “apparel” would satisfy the Act if properly affixed to the goods they identify.
We agree with Arlen Realty that the amendment to the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1640(g), which was not previously brought to our attention, makes it clear that White is entitled to a statutory recovery totaling $100 for the multiple violations involved in this case, and we so hold.
Except as modified, we adhere to our prior opinion.
BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, dissented.