Prepare a 750-1,050-word paper in which you describe Business Regulation, Torts and Liability in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, according to the cases presented

Prepare a 750-1,050-word paper in which you describe Business Regulation, Torts and Liability in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, according to the cases presented. In your paper, there must be reference to the specific facts of the cases portrayed, issues solved and legal grounds regarding the assigned topic. You shall demonstrate that you read the cases posted on New Classroom.

Please use the following cases from the PR Supreme Court as a reference to answer Week’s 2 Individual Assignment.

1) Colón v. KMART, 154 D.P.R. 510 (2001) on Torts and Liability. This case is available free on the web through www.lexjuris.com with the following citation: 2001 TSPR 95.
2) Acosta v. DACO, 114 D.P.R. 160 (1983) on Business Regulation.
Luis Acosta, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 1/5
114 DPR 160 Luis Acosta, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs

Document Information
Part ies:
Lui s Acosta, Inc. v. Depar tment of Consumer Affai r s
Dat e: 12 Apr i l 1983
Quot e: 114 DPR 160
Judge: Per Cur i am

LUIS ACOSTA, INC., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, prosecutorturned.
Resolved: April 12, 1983 Number: 082466

1 STATUTE, USAGE, EQUITYinterpretation and application of ACTLAWS IN PARTICULAR
FEDERAL STATUTELAW FEDERAL FOOD, DRUGS AND COSMETICOS.La law Food, Drug and
Cosmetics federal, 21 USC sec. 301 et seq., Specifically applies to Puerto Rico.

2 ID.ID.ID.ID.ID.La Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics federal, 21 USC sec. 301 et seq., And
Packaging and Labeling Act, 15 USC sec. 1452, federal lawsbothhave not occupied the field of state
legislative action.

3 Id.Id.Id.Id.IA unless there is a manifest purpose of Congress to occupy a historically subject to
state legislative field, not to boast that fact.

4 Id.Id.Id.Id.ID.Los federal statutes do not exclude any state legislation in the area can, however,
override other laws that contravene with

Page: 161

Art them. VI of the Constitution of the United States if state law frustrates the purpose of Congress.

5 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTINTERPRETATION, AND APPLICATION EFFECT OF
CONSTITUTIONALCONSTITUTIONAL PRECEPTS PRECEPTS ESTATUTARIOS.Es
constitutional Sec 15 of the Weights and Measures Act of Puerto Rico..

6 PUERTO RICOCOMMONWEALTHSTATUS AND POLITICAL RELATIONS ELA ACTIONS
THAT INVADE THE POWER OF UNITED STATES FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND ELAIN
CONFLICTO.El Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Libre can legislate on weights and measures, as the US
Congress has not occupied the field, provided there is no conflict between federal law and Puerto Rico,
4/5/2015 Luis Acosta, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 2/5
which represents an impermissible burden on interstate commerce.

Petition for certiorari to review a decision of José L. Miranda De Hostos, J. (San Juan), confirming a
decision of the Department of Consumer Affairs. For the foregoing in view, the case is returned to the
request for further proceedings.

Julio M. Rodriguez, Fiddler, González & Rodríguez, attorney for the petitioner; Carmen Monclova
Anselmi attorney for the respondent.

PER CURIAM: The Department of Consumer Affairs (“DACO”) fined Luis Acosta, Inc. for violating
Section 15 of the Weights and Measures Act, Act No. 145 of June 27, 1968 23 LPRA sec.. . 915. (1) The
alleged offense occurred by distributing bags of rice three pounds with a lower than indicated in the same
weight. Acosta requested a review of the administrative decision to the High Court, which upheld the
decision of the agency. Acosta came to this forum and argues that the action of DACO conflicts with the
provisions of the federal law requiring changes are allowed on the package weight in those products
hygroscopic nature, ie, they possess the ability to absorb or exhale moisture according to the
circumstances of the environment, with the consequent change in weight. We agree to review.

(1) This provision decrees:

“It will be illegal to sell, offer or expose for sale less than the amount indicated for any item or service…
(End of footnote)

Page: 162

Acosta imported rice “Blue Ribbon” and sells it to other firms in the same packages of three pounds in
the US rice arrives. DACO visited several supermarkets to verify compliance with the Weights and
Measures Act. In a supermereado lacking air conditioning found several packages weighing less same as
that specified on the label. The two samples of ten packets, each examined by the inspector revealed
variations from 1/16 to 1/4 ounce less in different bags. In one, two packages were 7/16 and 1/2 oz ounce
more. The average error was less than zero on both occasions. DACO imposed the fine on the grounds
that the average variation between the weight of the packages examined and the weight indicated on the
label thereof should be zero.

Consider the relationship between federal and state law. The first federal law to consider is the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”), 52 Stat. 1040 et seq., 21 USCA sec. 301 et seq.

[1] The FDCA expressly applies to Puerto Rico equal to any state of the United States. 21 USCA sec.
321 (a). Rice is a food within the terms of the law. Ibid., Paragraph (f). The FDCA prohibits the improper
labeling of food in interstate commerce. 21 USCA sec. 331 (b). On such improper labeling, the law
provides:

A food Shall be Deemed to be misbranded

(E) if in package form UNLESS it bears a label container containing (1) the name and place of business
of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and (2) an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in
terms of weight, measure, or numerical count: Provided, That under clause (2) of subsection reasonable
variations esta Shall be permitted, and Exemptions as to small packages Shall be established , by
4/5/2015 Luis Acosta, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 3/5
Regulations prescribed by the Secretary. 21 USCA sec. 343 (e).

Page: 163

Under this law has passed a federal regulation that is expressed:

The declaration of net quantity of contents Shall express an accurate statement of the quantity of contents
of the package. Reasonable variations Caused by loss or gain of moisture During the course of good
distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice will be Recognized.
Variations from Stated quantity of contents Shall not be unreasonably large. 21 CFR sec. 101.105 (q), 42
Fed. Reg. 14308 (March 15, 1977), as amended on 42 Fed. Reg. 15673 (March 22, 1977).

Rice, being just a food under the FDCA, is also subject to the provisions of the Federal Packaging and
Labeling Act (FPLA), 80 Stat. 1296 et seq., 15 USCA sec. 1452 et seq. The FPLA states that its
provisions do not override or supersede those of the FDCA The US Supreme Court has ruled that under
the FPLA can not impose criminal or civil penalties for reasonable variations permissible under the
FDCA Jones v. Rath Packing Co., US 519 430, 537538 (1977).

[23] The federal laws have not occupied the field. Jones, supra, p. 525, 540541. Unless there is a clear
Congressional intent to occupy a historically subject to state legislative field, not to boast that fact. Rice
v. Elevator Corp. Santa Fe, US 218 331, 230 (1947). The situation in the present case on this issue is
simple. The FPLA itself provides that Congress tries to validate only those state laws are less stringent
than the federal statute and regulations. 15 USCA sec. 1461.

[4] The absorption or not by the federal government in an area of state legislative action is, however, just
one facet of the problem of defining the relationship between the members of a federation or association.
Federal statutes do not exclude any state legislation

Page: 164

an area may nevertheless override statutes other than in conflict with them. Art. VI of the US
Constitution. From this second perspective, the analysis focuses on state whether state law frustrates the
purpose of Congress. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 US 52, 67 (1941); Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373
US 132 (1963).

Jones, supra, faced this last task in a similar context to the present. In California there is a statute
criminalizing the sale of products if the average weight of packages or containers was less than labeled.
The administrative authorities in California to sanctions imposed by certain companies offer to sell flour
and bacon, both hygroscopic nature. The US Supreme Court ruled that it had not occurred occupation of
the field, but California law hampering compliance with federal. The Court stated that the state’s refusal
to allow reasonable variations due to moisture loss and instead require an average weight of zero,
represented an unacceptable burden interstate commerce. (2) Manufacturers who distribuyesen their
products in those states that had adopted the federal employer does not have to worry essentially by the
hygroscopic phenomenon, according to the latest regulations. The other manufacturers would have to do.
Manufacturer for domestic markets would always have to pack larger quantities for areas with very
different levels of humidity.

In Puerto Rico there is a curious situation. Sec. 15 of the Weights and Measures Act, 23 LPRA sec. 915,
4/5/2015 Luis Acosta, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 4/5
does not allow its lower face the labeled weight. DACO has not adopted any regulation on the problem
we

(2) When using the average weight as a criterion to determine whether it complies with the law, does not
take into account the weight loss because of the hygroscopic nature of the grain. Note that this
phenomenon affects all packages in the sample. (End of footnote)

Page: 165

occupies. According consists of cars, what the agency is used, only a guide, a former Commerce
Department Manual, National Bureau of Standards Handbook 67, published on March 20, 1959. DACO’s
action in this case is based on the manual and resembles the Californian method.

[56] In Méndez & Co., Inc. v. DACO, 104 DPR 707 (1976), we express ourselves on the hygroscopic
phenomenon. We reject there as here too, any attack on the constitutionality of Sec. 15 of the Weights
and Measures Act. As in Jones, supra, determined after Mendez added that Congress has not occupied
the field. Puerto Rico retains its power of legislation on weights and measures, which is certainly less
than that of a state. Our task is only to determine if in this situation the possibility of a conflict between
federal law and Puerto Rico, which represents an impermissible burden on interstate commerce.

The case contains four different elements to the facts analyzed in Mendez, supra. In Méndez the product
concerned, beans, was packed in Puerto Rico for sale here. In the current case, packaging happened in
America. As in Jones, supra, was wrapped more than one jurisdiction. Secondly, Mendez was not
penalized, as here any overweight. (1) The original overweight, moreover, which offset the hygroscopic
phenomenon. Third, the error margins presented in Mendez were mostly unreasonable. In this case, even
using own board of reasonableness used by DACO, which

(3) It should be noted that our law only prohibits the sale of fewer than directed. DACO no authority in
law to criminalize the sale or offering for sale of which contain a greater amount than the labeled items.
The text of Sec. 15 of the Weights and Measures Act see escolio 1 of this opinion is crystalline. (End of
footnote)

Page: 166

allows in packs of three minor errors pounds up to 6/16 of an ounce, no such rule was violated. No
package revealed a deficiency brunt of 4/16 of an ounce. Finally, controversy exists in this case, although
recently which, whether polished rice is hygroscopic in nature. No record factual determination on the
matter.

The case was returned to the request to specify the properties of polished rice. Of not having hygroscopic
quality, will be allowed only penalize errors less. To possess, the fine is void on the ground that the
action of DACO, in situations like this, collides with the standard sitting on Jones.

The case was returned to the request for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Associate Justice Lord Negrón García was inhibited and Associate Justice Lord Rebollo López concurred
4/5/2015 Luis Acosta, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 5/5
in the result, no opinion.