Donald & Dunager, Inc.

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

In THE Marrer or DONALD & DUNAGER, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC.. IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7624. Complaint, Oct. 28, 1959—Decision, Feb. 12, 1960 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease vieluting the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to comply with invoicing requirements, by advertising through correspondence and consignment invoices which represented prices as reduced without giving the time of the higher prices, and by failing to keep adequate records as a basis for said pricing claims. Mr. Ames W. Walliams for the Commission.

Mr. Charles Goldberg, of New York, N.Y., for respondents. TnivraL Decision By Encar A. Burrur, Heartnc Examiner On October 23, 1959 the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint charging Donald & Dunager, Inc., a corporation, and Leon Dunager, Martin Donald and Samuel Shore, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, with falsely and deceptively invoicing and advertising certain of their fur products in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act.

After issuance and service of the complaint, the respondents and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement for a consent order. The agreement has been approved by the Director and the Assistant. Director of the Bureau of Litigation. The agreement disposes of the matters complained about. The pertinent provisions of said agreement are as follows: Respondents admit all jurisdictional facts; the complaint may be used DONALD & DUNAGER, INC., ET AL. 903 902 Order in construing the terms of the order; the order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and the said agreement shall not become a part of the oflicial record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission ; the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; respondents waive the requirement that the decision must contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; respondents waive further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, and the order may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided by staute for other orders; respondents waive any right to challenge or contest the validity of the order entered in accordance with the agreement and the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged — in the complaint.

The undersigned hearing examiner having considered the agreement. and proposed order and being of the opinion that the acceptance thereof will be in the public interest, hereby accepts such agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and issues the following order:

JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS le Respondent Donald & Dunager, Inc.. is © corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York with its office and principal place of business located at 345 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. 2. The individual respondents Leon Dunager, Martin Donald and Samuel Shore are oflicers of said corporation and contro]. formulate and direct. fhe acts, practices and policies of the corporate respondent. Their office and principal place of business is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

3. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject. matter of this proceeding and of the respondents and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER Tt is ordered, That Donald & Dunager, Inc., a corporation, and its officers. and Leon Dunager, Martin Donald and Samuel Shore, individually and as oflicers of said corporation. and respondents’ representatives. agents and emplovees, directly or through anv corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, manufacture for introduction, or the sale. advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products or Sylabus 06 FVT.C.

in connection with the sale, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce as “commerce,” “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products an invoice showing all thé information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement, or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of fur products, and which: A. Represents directly or by implication that prices of fur products are reduced from previous higher prices without giving the time of such compared prices.

B. Misrepresents in any manner the amount of savings available to purchasers of respondents’ merchandise. 3. Making claims and representations in advertisements respecting prices or values of fur products unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 12th day of February, 1960, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

It is ordered, That the respondents herein shall], within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist.