Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         

          computer services.  Triplex provides similar services to both               
          nonprofit and commercial entities on the same terms.                        
               Petitioner retains Craver, Mathews, Smith, & Company, Inc.             
          (CMS), to assist it in raising funds and building its master and            
          rental lists.  Petitioner first contracted with CMS for list                
          management services during the 1980's.  Petitioner renewed its              
          contract with CMS on December 17, 1990, October 7, 1992, and                
          February 4, 1993.2  As petitioner's list manager, CMS determines            
          the overall management strategy and supervises all list rental              
          transactions involving petitioner's rental list.                            
               CMS retains the services of other list managers to handle              
          the details of the list rental transactions.  Before August 1993,           
          CMS retained the services of Names in the News (Names), a                   
          professional list manager and list broker that regularly handles            
          both nonprofit and commercial mailing lists.  On July 23, 1993,             
          CMS communicated with petitioner regarding its choice of American           
          List Counsel, Inc. (ALC), as list manager for future list rental            
          transactions.  After August 1993, CMS retained the services of              




          2    Petitioner renewed its contract with CMS sometime between              
          August 1993 and February 1995.  The contract provides that it is            
          effective beginning August 1993, which is within the period in              
          issue in the instant case.  Petitioner contends, however, that              
          the terms of the contract were not agreed upon until February               
          1995, which is after the period in issue in the instant case, and           
          petitioner argues that the terms of this contract therefore are             
          not relevant to the instant case.  We find that the date the                
          contract became binding is irrelevant because after August 1993             
          the rental transactions involving petitioner's rental list were             
          actually arranged in accordance with the terms of the contract.             


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011