In the Matter of a Mail                )    August 24, 1992
 Dispute Between:                       )
                                        )
 ROGER O. WETHERHOLT                    )
 THE WETHERHOLT GALLERIES               )
                                        )
 and                                    )
                                        )
 HOWARD A. GRAD, PRESIDENT              )
 GALLERY MARKETING, INC.                )    P. S. Docket No. MD-139

APPEARANCES FOR DISPUTANT Karen M. Lockwood, Esq. ROGER O. WETHERHOLT Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott THE WETHERHOLT GALLERIES: 3050 K Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20007-5108

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT Howard A. Grad HOWARD A. GRAD 1034 Union Church Road GALLERY MARKETING, INC.: McLean, VA 22102-1115

Disputants Howard A. Grad has requested that the Order of the Judicial Officer issued April 17, 1992, be amended to provide that mail addressed to Wetherholt Galleries, 3050 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007-2706 should be delivered in accordance with the direction of Howard A. Grad, President, Gallery Marketing, Inc. The Judicial Officer has referred the matter to the undersigned to determine whether the request should be granted.

Disputant Wetherholt opposes the request. Both parties have submitted written argument supporting their positions.

The Initial Decision dated March 19, 1992, determined that under the Marketing Agreement (Agreement) between the parties Gallery Marketing, Inc. (Marketing) had the right to use the name Wetherholt Galleries, Inc. (Gallery) to receive mail generated by the Agreement at Marketing's place of business, then 8133 Leesburg Pike, #550, Vienna, VA 22182-2706 and that Disputant Grad, President of Marketing, had the right to direct the delivery of mail so addressed.

Gallery has never had a corporate office or place of business at 3050 K Street which is Gallery's present location. The Agreement does not by its terms give Marketing a right to receive mail addressed to Gallery at a location other than Marketing's place of business.

Disputant Grad argues that he should be allowed direct delivery of mail addressed to Gallery at 3050 K Street because Gallery is breaching the Agreement and circumventing the Judicial Officer's order of April 17 by arranging for mail subject to the Agreement to be addressed by senders to 3050 K Street.

Mr. Grad's request goes beyond the terms of the Agreement relating to delivery of mail, calling for findings of breach of contract and ownership of mail outside the jurisdiction of the Postal Service to determine under the Domestic Mail Manual. It also seeks delivery of mail contrary to the presumed intent of senders.

It is, therefore, determined that Disputant Grad's request must be and hereby is denied.

                                        Quentin E. Grant
                                        Chief Administrative Law Judge