Armstrong Aluminum Window Co., Inc., et al.

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

which it has complied with the order to cease and desist. IN 'Im, MATTER 0"

ARMSTROKG ALUMIKIDI WnDOW CO., INC., ET AL. COXSEXT Order, ETC. , IX REGARD TO THE AI.JLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\DIISSION AC'r Docket 8127. Complaint, Sept. 1960 Decision, Feb. 0 1961 Consent order requiring a ,Ves:t Springfield, Mass.. distributor of aluminum sidinl!. storm \vindo\ys and doors. aluminum patios, etc., to cease making offers to sell in advertising in newspapers and other media which were not bOlla fide but were made to obtain leads to prospective buyers, whose purchases at the advertised prices they then discouraged and to whom they attempted to "en much higher priced products. COJIPLAIXT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in jt by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Armstrong Aluminulll 'Vindow Co., Inc. , a corporate.ion, and Leonard B. Paul individually and as an offcer of saiel corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceecling by it in respect thereof would be in t.he public interest hereby issues its complaint stating- its cha.rges in that respect as follows: \R\GRAPIT 1. Respondent Armstrong A1uminmn 'Vindow Co. Inc. , is a corporation orga.nized, exist.ing and doing business under and b Tvirt.ue of the ht,,",s of t.he St.ate of l\Ia srlChnsetts, with its offce and principal phcc of business located at 1702 Riverdale Roncl ,Vest Springfield, :lInssachnsetts.

Respondent. Leonard B. Paul is an offc.er of the corporate respondent. He fornmJates, directs and controls the policies, praetic.es and acts of said corporate respondent, including the practices nnd acts q.

ARlUS'STRONG ALUMINUM WINDOW CO, INC. , E'T AL. 161 160 Complaint: hereina.after referred to. His address is the same as that aT the corporate respondent.

SH. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time past ha.ve been enga.gecl in the advertising, offering Tor sale, sale and distribution of various items of merchandise suitable for instaUation in private homes, including aJuminml1 sidjng, storm windows and doors, and aluminum patios.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents now cause, and for some time pa,st have caused, their said products to be shipped from their place of business in the State of ::IassachuseLts to purchasers t.hereof located in the State of Connecticut, and maintain, and at all times have maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of their business, and Tor the purpose of inducing the sale of their aluminum products, respondents have made statements in newspapers and other media, typical of which, but not all inclusive are the following: Save Nmv! Pay Next Fall Aluminum Siding Includes Labor And Materials Ko Extras Any o-Room House Completely Installed Only $R29 Up to 1000 ft.

Aluminum Siding Cover your entire house Completely Installed S2DD Per 1000 sq. ft.

In 14 Beautiful colors Ko Down Payment PAR. 5. By means of the statements in the aforesaid ac1ve.rtisements, and oj-hers of the same import not specifically set out herein respondents represented, directly or by implication, that they were making a bona fide offer t.o seh the product advertised at the price set out in the Rc1vE'Ttisements.

PAR. 6. The aforesaid statements and representations \Were false mislead,cling and deceptive. In truth and in fact: 1. The offers set forth in Paragra.ph Four above were not genuine and bona fide offers but were made for the purpose aT obtaining leads and information as to persons interested in the purchase of respondent' s products. After obtaining such leads through response 681.-237- Decision 58 F.

to such advertisements ,md callng upon such persons, respondents and their salesmen made no effort to sell the advertised products at the advertised price, but, instead, disparaged such products in such a manner as to discourage their purchase and attempted to, and frequently did, sell much higher priced products. 2. Prospective customers who did purchase certain of respondents advertised products were in many instances switched to more expensi ve items after such a sale by respondents' practice of not delivering the purchased product to the homeowner. PAR. 7. In the course and conduct of their business at all times mentioned herein, respondents have been in substantial competition in commerce, w.ith corporations, firms and individuals engaged in the sale of products of the same general kind and nature as those sold by respondents.

PAR. 8. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendeney to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that such statement.s and representations were, and are, true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief. As a consequence thereof substantial trade in commerce has been, and is being, unfairly diverted to respondents from their competitors and substantial injury has thereby been, and is being, done to competition in commerce. PAR. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, were, and are, all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and 1m fair methods or competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Theodor P. van Brand, Esq. for the Commission. Irving Fein, Esq. of Springfield, Mass. , for respondents. INITIAL DECISION BY ROBERT L. PIPEH HEARI EXA:\IINER The Federal Trade Commission on September 26, 1960, issued its complaint against the above-named respondents charging them with having violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, by misrepresenting the price of their products. Respondents appeared and entered into an agreement dated December 1 , 1960, containing a consent order to cease and desist, disposing of all the issues in this proceeding without further hearings, which agreement has been duly approved by the Bureau of Litigation. Said agreement has been submitted to the undersigned, heretofore duly designated to ARMSTROKG ALUMIM WINDOW CO., me. , ET AL. 163 IGO Decision act as hearing examiner herein, ror his consideration in accordance with 25 of the Rules of Practice of the Commission. Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, have admitted all of the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made duly in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondents waive all further procedural steps before the hearing examiner or the Commission, including the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law and the right to 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 offcial 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 respondents that they have 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 C01ne on ror fial consideration on the complaint and the aroresaid agreement containing the consent order and it appearing that the order and agreement cover all 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 becoming part of the Commission s decision pursuant to 21 and 3.25 of the Rules of Practice, and the hearing examiner accordingly makes the rollowing findings, ror jurisdictional purposes, and order: 1. Respondent Armstrong Aluminum 1Vindow Co., Inc. , is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue or the laws of the State of Massachusetts, with its offce and principal place of business located at 1702 Riverdale Road, in the City of IV est Springleld, State of "Massachusetts.

Paul is President and 2. Individual respondent Leonard B. Treasurer or the corporate respondent. He rormulates, directs and controls t.he poEeies, practices and acts or said corporate respondent. Ilis address is the same as that or the corporate.e respondent. 3. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter or this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. The complaint. states a cause or nction against said respondents under the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public.

Com plai n t 58 F.

1 tis oTdererl That respondents Armstrong Aluminum '\Vinclow Co. Inc. , and its offcers, and Leonard B. Paul, individually and as an officer of sa,id corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through a.ny corporate or other device , sale, or distribution ofin connection with the offering for sale aluminum sieling, or any other merclutndise, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do fortlnvith cease and desist from:

Representing, directly or indirectly, that certain merchandise is offered for sale when such offer is not a bona fide offer to sell the merchandise so offered.

DECISION OF THE COl\DIISSTON AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT 01' CO:)lPLIAXCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Comlnission s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shan, on the 9th day of February 1061 , become the decision of the Commission; and accordingly:

It is ordered That the above-named respondents 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 \\ith the order to cease and desist.