Interpretive Opinion No. 71 / 45F
State of California Department of Corporations
Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner
In reply refer to: File No. _____
Mr. W. Harrison Lyster
International Tape Distributing Corporation
Encino, CA 91316
Dear Mr. Kassoy:
On the basis of the representations contained in your letter dated August 24, 1971, Interpretive Opinion No. 71/45F is amended and supplemented in the following respects:
1. The 3rd and with sentences of the 3rd paragraph of said opinion are amended. to read as follows:
"This agreement provides for the securing of 10 locations by International for the dealer and for the purchase by the dealer of 60 tapes per location.. Under the other agreement, the dealer pays $5890 of which $1390 is a refundable deposit; under this agreement, International secures 20 locations for the dealer and the dealer purchases 60 tapes per location."
2. The words and figures "in the case of a 30 tape purchase as against a 60 tape purchase" at the end of the next to the last paragraph of said opinion, are amended to read:
"in the case of a 10 location transaction as against a 20 location transaction"
3. The following paragraph is added at the end of said opinion:
"We have noted the contention in your letter dated August 24, 1971, that the burden of establishing the wholesale price, has been met by you. We express no opinion with respect to this contention because the question as to what is the bona fide wholesale price of goods, is a question of fact, and not a proper subject for determination in an interpretive opinion. Such opinions, under Sections 31510 and 31511 of the Franchise Investment Law may deal only with legal questions relating to the interpretation of the Franchise Investment Law and the regulations of the Commissioner thereunder and are not extended to the determination of questions of fact."
Dated: San Francisco California
September 7, 1971
By order of
BRIAN R. VAN CAMP
Commissioner of Corporations
HANS A. MATTES
Office of Policy