- 31 -
only when each of the cooperating organizations is individually
authorized to mail at the special bulk rates.
Edward Shelton, president of ABS, testified that it was a
business mistake for ABS to use the mail permit because of mail
delivery restrictions applicable to such permitted mail. He
also testified that ABS paid the postage and that use of the
permit was not considered when the SC-ABS agreement was entered
into and petitioner became obligated “to cooperate”.
Mr. Shelton was credible in all of that testimony.
We have found that petitioner was not in the business of
marketing the credit card program or in the business of
providing marketing services to ABS. The mailings in question
were ABS’, and, thus, since ABS was not entitled to the special
bulk rates in question, ABS’ use of the mail permit was
unlawful. Because it involved an unlawful action, we hesitate
to classify it as cooperation under the SC-ABS agreement. We
become firm in that conclusion based on Mr. Shelton’s credible
testimony that, at the time that agreement was entered into, it
was not considered. Therefore, we conclude, and find, that use
of the mail permit was not a service provided to ABS pursuant
to the SC-ABS agreement.
None of the receipts were received on account of ABS’s use
of the mail permit.
6. Active Endorsement and Sponsorship
Respondent argues that the obligation “to cooperate”
imposed on petitioner by Article 2.1 is an obligation to
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011