Harold F. Reed, Jr.

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

IN THE IHATTER OF HAROLD F. REED, JR.

CONSENT ORDER , ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\Il\IISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 787D. Complaint, May -4, 1960-Decision, Aug. 5, 1960 Consent order requiring an jndi-ridual in Boston, Mass., to cease violating the \Vonl Products LnbeJing Act by failing to label woolen stocks, and by in- ,oicing cC:~l'tflin woolen stocks as of higher cashmere content than was the fact.

350 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. DECISIONS Complaint 57 F.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Aet of 1D39 and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that I-Iarold F. Reed, Jr. , an individual hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Acts and the R.ules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Aet., and it. appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as tallows:

P A R.-\ G R...-\ 1. The respondent, Harold F. Reed, Jr., is an individual whose last known address was 311 Summer Street, Boston Thiass.

\R. 2. For several years prior to December 31 1D58 respondent was an employee of Forte, Dupee, Sawyer Company, wool dealers serving in the 'Vool \Vaste Department. From 1956 to December 31 1958, respondent' s duties, among other things, involved purchasing wool stock for the aforesaid company. Respondent also was the principal planner and executor of the various textile waste blends made up by said Department for resale during that period. PAR. 3. Subsequent to the eflective date of the ,Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and more espeeiaJly since 1956, respondent participated in the manufacture for introduction into commerce, the introduction into commerce, the sale, transportation, distribution delivery for shipment, and offering for sale in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Act, of wool products as "wool products are defined therein.

PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products, namely, woolen stocks including wool, wool waste and specialty fibers, were misbranded by respondent in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled as required under the provisions of Seetion 4 (a) (2) of the vVool Products Labeling Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and H-egulations promulgated under said Act. PAR. 5. The respondent, in the course and conduct of his business, as aforesaid, was in substantial competition in commerce with other individuals and with firms and corporations likewise engaged in the manufacture and sale of wool products, including woolen stocks.

PAR. 6. The acts and practices of respondent, as above set forth were and are in violation of the \Yool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulaiions promulgated thereunder, and consti- . tuted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices HAROLD F. REED , JR. 351 349 Decision and unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 7. In the course and conduct of his business operations in commerce, as aforesaid, the respondent invoiced certain woolen stocks containing wool and cashmere fibers as "51 % cashmere, 49% wool 51 % cashmere 75% cashmere " and "82% cashmere " whereas, in truth and in fact, said products contained quantities or reprocessed eashmere and substantially less cashmere than was represented. PAR. 8. The acts and practices set out in Paragraph Seven, have had and now have the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive the purchasers of said proc1nct.s as to the true fiber content thereof and to misbrand products manufactured by them in which said materials "were used.

\R. U. The acts and practices of respondent set out in paragraph 7 were all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondent's competitors and constituted and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unrair methods of competition in C01111nerce: within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

De lVitt PuckeU Esq., for the Commission. lVithington, 01'088 , PaTk M cOann by Charles O. Worth Esq. Boston, :Mass., ror respondent.

INITIAL DECISION BY ROBERT L. PIPER, HEARING EXAltfINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-name.d respondent on l\lay 4, 1960, ehnrging him with having violated the '\V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 , the rules and regulations issued thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, by misbranding and falsely invoicing certain of his woolen stocks, including wool, wool waste and specialty fibers. Respondent appeared by counsel and entered into an agreement, dated June 1 1960, containing a consent order to cease and desist, disposing of all the issues in this proceeding without rurther hearings, which agreement has been duly approved by the Director, Associate Director and Assistant Director or the Bureau of Litigation. Said agreement has been submitted to the undersigned, heretofore duly designated to as hearing examiner herein, ror his consideration in aecordanee with S 3.25 of the Rules of Practice of the Commission. Respondent, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, has admitted all of the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisc1ietionaJ facts had been made duly in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondent waives all further procedural steps Order 57 F.'T.

before the hearing examiner or the Commission, including the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law and the right t.o challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with such agreement. It has also been agreed that the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and said agreement, that the agreement shall not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission that said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that he has violated the law as alleged in the complaint, that said order to cease and desist shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided for other orders, and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order.

This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing the eonsent order and it appearing that the order and agreement cover all of the allegations of the complaint and provide for appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted and ordered filed upon this decision and said agreement beeoming part of the Commission s deeision pursuant to ~ 3.21 and 9 3.25 of the Rules of Practice, and the hearing examiner aeeordingly maj\:es the foliowing findings, for jurisdictional purposes, and order: 1. Respondent Harold F. Reed, Jr., is an individual whose principal place of business was loeat.ed at 311 Summer Street, in the City of Boston, State of ~iassachusetts. His present location is 113 Country "'\V ay, Needham, l\iass.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding, and of the respondent hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondent under the "'\Yool Products Labeling: .Act of 192\) an (1 the Federal Tracie Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public. ORDER 1 t -is O1'de?' That respondent Harold F. Reed, Jr., an individual his agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction or manufacture for introduction into commerce, or the offering for sale sale, transportation or distribution in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the "'\V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, of wool waste or other "wool products, as su ch prod uets are defined in and su bj eet to the "\tV 001 Prod uets Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbrand- GIFT PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. 353 349 Decision ing such products by failing to affix labels to such products showing each element of information required to be disclosed by ~ 4(a) (2) of the 'IV 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939. It fu1'thel' ordered That respondent Harold F. Reed, Jr., an individual, his agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of wool waste or any other product in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misrepresenting the constituent fibers of which his products are composed, or the percentages or amounts thereof, on invoices, shipping memoranda or in any other manner.

DECISION OF THE COl\Il\IISSION 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 5th day of August 1960 , become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

It is ordered That respondent Harold F. Reed, Jr., an individual shall within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order file with the Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with the order cease and desist.