Eliza took her car to her regular mechanic, who had a private business. The mechanic often advertised on billboards, writing "Re
liable fixesand low costs" and "The cheapest prices." After getting her engine checked, she incurred over $2,000 in costs. Out of curiosity, she went toa competing private firm that also fixed cars, and the private firm said that she paid significantly more to her mechanic than the costs of boththe parts and labor. Eliza sued her mechanic, alleging that she had been misled by her mechanics advertisements. The court applied theCentral Hudson test, and found the mechanic’s advertisements were misleading. The mechanic argued that pursuant to his first amendmentrights, his speech was protected, especially because they were generalizations that should not have been taken literally. The court ruled infavor of Eliza, ordering the mechanic to pay Eliza for damages and to take the advertisements down.But what if the facts of the case were different? Select the appropriate set of facts below that would change the outcome of the case.a) The court found that the advertisements were not inherently misleading. However, it did find that regulating the advertisement in questionwas more extensive than necessary to protect the public interest.b) The court found that the advertising in question constituted commercial speech.c) The court found that the advertisements in question did not advance the state’s interest.d) The court finds that the speech in the advertisements is not misleading, but that the state’s interest would be advanced if the advertising in question were restricted.
b) The court found that the advertising in question constituted commercial speech
Explanation:
The Central Hudson Test is used by the supreme court primarily to gauge if advertisement qualifies as commercial speech, which will satisfy the First Amendment requirements.
Formerly commercial speech had no protection but after the Central Hudson Gas vs Public Service Commission of NY, a framework was done to test validity of commercial speech.
A major part of this test was also if the government has substantial interest, and whether government interest will be promoted.
For this situation agent isn't right in any way. The back up plan should acknowledged the essential duty to pay for all the harms that are brought about by the Dmitri. As this isn't an instance of misrepresentation as the safety net provider would consent to pay on the behalf of Dmitri on the off chance that he failed to pay.
