GORDON V. UNITED STATES
203 F.2d 248 (1953) rev'd 347 U.S. 909 (1954)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from a conviction for violation of the Defense
Production Act.
FACTS: The first count in the information charged Ds, Allan Gordon and Eli Tempkin, doing
business as National Stores, and Burt Deverich and Harvey Stone made an installment sale of
a sewing machine designed for household use to Buean E. Colley, and that on the delivery of
such machine Ds unlawfully, knowingly and wilfully accepted and received a down payment in
an amount less than a sum equal to 25% of the sale price thereof in violation of Section 601
of the Defense Production Act and Regulation W promulgated thereunder. Gordon and Tempkin
(D) were partners in a sewing machine and appliance business and were convicted of selling
sewing machines in violation of the Defense Production Act. The Act required a showing of
willfulness. The case was tried and submitted on the theory that the knowledge of one
partner regarding the offending transactions was imputable, attributable and chargeable to
the other and that the knowledge and acts of the salespeople who made the sales and kept the
records while acting in the course of their employment were imputable and chargeable to the
employing partners. Gordon (D) lived in Los Angeles, California and that he came to Salt
Lake City two or three times to attend sales meetings and to make sales talks. There was no
proof that he participated in or had actual knowledge of any of the sales laid in the
information or any other sales shown in the record to have been made without the required
down payment. Indeed, the sales contracts introduced in evidence show the receipt of the
full amount of the required down payment. Similar contracts, duplicate bank deposit slips,
and evidence of like transactions all showing the full payment of the down payments and
their deposit in a Salt Lake City bank, were mailed daily to the Los Angeles store for
records there. There is no direct or positive proof that either Gordon or Tempkin (Ds) made,
participated in, or had actual knowledge of either of the transactions. D was convicted and
appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment