false advertising

(redirected from Proof Requirement)
Also found in: Legal.

false advertising

Advertising that contains blatantly false or misleading statements, whether intentional or not.False advertising may be grounds for rescission,or cancellation,of a contract,and it may also provide the basis for an award of compensatory and punitive damages.

The Complete Real Estate Encyclopedia by Denise L. Evans, JD & O. William Evans, JD. Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
Following a review of fundamentals of MSPB procedures, laws and regulations, organization and staff, and types of cases brought before the MSPB, chapters detail processes and procedures of arbitration and gives guidelines on proof requirements and defenses, employee and agency considerations of pre-appeal advocacy, and effective motion practice.
Bulgarian media described the court's decision as a victory for big collectors, who were seen as the main force lobbying in favour of dropping the proof requirements and allowing a statute of limitations dispensation.
Moreover, the MW Erectors court eviscerated a previously recognized "substantial compliance" exception to the strict pleading and proof requirements of Section 7031 (a).
Nevertheless, the Wade opinion will inevitability result in an increase in the filing of modification proceedings because of the lowered proof requirements. Additionally, now that the requirement of proving "detriment" appears to have been eliminated, more custody situations will lend themselves to challenge.
There is much more to a common-law approach, however, than proof requirements. For example, the common law operates iteratively, producing gradual evolution of rules through the examination of multiple individual disputes.
Plaintiffs may no longer rely on the proof necessary to establish a tort when it comes to trade secrets, but must meet the proof requirements of ATSA for liability and damages.
If Congress intended to require heightened proof requirements in mixed-motive cases, it would have included language to that effect in the act.
Lawmakers said that S.2010 is necessary because current federal law relating to obstruction of justice in document destruction cases is littered with loopholes and burdensome proof requirements. For example, under current provisions it is a crime for an individual to persuade another person to destroy documents, but it is not against the law if that individual destroys the same documents himself/herself.
* codifies scienter (or intent) pleading and proof requirements and strengthens the rule of "loss causation."
NPCA faults the bill's lack of meaningful proof requirements. Claimants must only file a "simple notice" with the secretary of the Interior that contains a map and a general description of the asserted right-of-way.
Coverage begins with the basics of adverse actions and proceeds through charging basics and intricacies, ending with working with the deciding officials and proof requirements. Information is thorough, focused, and well organized (and indexed).
Implement Fair Burden of Proof Requirements: Require that, in order to establish the plaintiff's right to no-fault benefits, the plaintiff must produce a witness with personal knowledge of the facts alleged in the plaintiff's complaint.