Carpet Distributors, Inc.
Volume 66 · 66 F.T.C. 479
Cite this decision
Carpet Distributors, Inc., 66 F.T.C. 479 (1964). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v066-0035
Report an error in this record (decision id v066-0035)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
- 65 F.T.C. 246 — BILLY & RUTH PRO:lOTION, Hie., ET AL cited_neutral
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
In tur Matrrer oF CARPET DISTRIBUTORS, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS DELTA CARPET MILLS ET AL.
CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICA- TION ACTS Docket C-804. Complaint, Aug. 5, 1964—Decision, Aug. 5, 1964 Consent order requiring Los Angeles carpet distributors to cease misbranding its textile fiber products, and furnishing false guaranties that its products are not misbranded.
Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Carpet Distributors, Inc., a corporation, doing business as Delta Carpet Mills, and Julius Fuchs, individually and as a former officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, 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 follows: DELTA CARPET MILLS ET AL, 479 476 Complaint compared price in good faith for a reasonably substantial period of time in the regular recent course of its business. lt is further ordered, That respondent Giant Food Inc., shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the order to cease and desist contained herein.
Commissioner MacIntyre does not concur with the action of the Commission in this instance. His views on the issues raised by respondent’s motion, which have been fully set forth in his statements of non-concurrence in Clinton Watch Company, et al. (Docket 7434, Order on Petition to Reopen Proceeding, February 17, 1964) [64 FVT.C. 1443], The Regina Corporation (Docket 8323, Order Reopening Proceeding and Modifying Cease and Desist Order, April 7, 1964) [65 F.T.C. 246] and his statement on the issuance of the Revised Guides Against Deceptive Pricing issued January 8, 1964, need no repetition here.