Robert'S Discount Center

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

IN THE 1\1--\ TTER OF ROBERT'S DISCOUNT CENTER ETAL, CONSENT ORDER, ETC" IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\I1\HSSION ACT Docket C-1326. Complaint, April 30, 19G5-Decision, Aprll 30 1968 Consent order requiring 11 ,Yashington, D. C. , discount merchandiser to cease ad\"ertising and selling used cameras and radios as new and misrepresenting the guarantees on sucllll1erchandise.

CO:i\IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and bv virtue of the authoritv vested in it bv said Act, the Federal reason to believe that Robert's DiscountTrade L'Commission, having" Center, H, partnership, and Joseph Chabbot and Robert D, Cohen individually and as copartners trading and doing business as Robert' Discount Center, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof \yould be in the public interest ,Complaint 73 F. 'l' C., hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Robert' s Discount Center is fl, partner,rship comprised of the following named individuals who forn1l1Iate. direct and control the acts and practices hereinafter set forth, The principal office and place of business of said partnership is located at 1114 F Street, N,V. , in the city of ,Vashington, District of Columbia. Respondents ,Joseph Chabbot and Robert D. Cohen are individuals and cO )partners trading" and doing' business as Robert' s Discount Center with their principal office and place of business located at the nbmstated address, PAR, 2, Respondents are now, and for some. time last past have been, engaged in the advertising, offering for sale, snap and distribution of cameras, radios and other articles of merchandise to the public. PAR, 3, In the course and conduct of their business, as aforesaid respondents now cause, and for some time last past have eausecl. their said merchandise to be sold to purchasers thereof located ,,-within the District of Columbia. Respondents nlaintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a sulFtantial course of trade in ~'aid merchandise in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR, 4, In the course and conduct of their aforesaid business. and for the purpose of inducing the purchase of certain of their cameras and . radios, respondents or their salesmen have represented, and are now representing, directly or by implication, that: 1. Certain cameras and radios offered for sale by respondents are new, 2, Certain cameras and radios are unconditionally guaranteed for a specified period of time, \R. 5. In truth and in fact:

1. Some of the cameras and radios offered for sale bv resnondents..l are not ne"'. They have been accepted in trade, repaired, reconditioned. or otherwise used, Such cameras and radios, ",hen represented as nev or in the absence of a disclosure that they are used, are understood and accepted by the public. as being nC\v.

2, Respondents' cameras and radios are not unconditionally guaranteed for the period of time specified, Such guarantees as they give are subject to c.onditions and limitations which.h are not disclosed to the purchaser, and in some instances respondents do not in fact fll1il1I all of their requirements and obligations under such gl1arantee~ Therefore, the statements and representations as set. forth in Paragraph Four hereof were and are false, misleading and decept.i H' ROBERT' S DISCOUNT CENTER ET AL, 791 789 Decision and Order PAR, 6, In the course and conduct of their aforesaid business, ancl at all times mentioned herein, respondents have been, and are now in substantial competition, in commerce, ,with corporations, firms and individuals in the sale and distribution or cameras, radios and other merchandise of the snme general kind and nature as those sold by responden ts.

PAR, 7, The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations were and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' merchandise by reason of said erroneous anclmistaken belief, PAR, 8, 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 no,y constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce andlUlfair and deceptiY6' acts and practices in commerce, in violation or Section 5 of the Federa I Trade Commission Act.

DECISIO~ .AXD ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter "ith a copy of a draft of complaint "which the Bureau of Deceptive. Practices proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents ,with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having there-airel' pxecuted an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing or said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the 1aw has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rule,s; and The Commission having thereafter considered the nla tter and ha yin.9." determined that it hadl'reason to believe that the. respondents hate ,-iolated the. said Act, and that eomplaint should issue stating its c1wl'gl's in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the exeeutecl consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days~ now in further conformity ,with the procedure 792 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS, Decision and Order 73 F.

prescribed in ~ 2,34 (b) of its Rules, the Conllnission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Robert's Discount Center is a partnership organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the District of Columbia, with its office and principal place of business loc.ated at 1114 F Street, mv" "'\Vashington, D.

Respondents Joseph Chahbot and Robert D, Cohen are individuals and copartners of said partnership and their address is the same as that of said partnership, 2. 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 1 t is onle1? That respondents Robert's Discount Center, a partnership, and Joseph Chabbot and Robert D, Cohen, individually and as copartners, trading and doing business as Robert's Discount Center or under any other name or names, and respondents' agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of cameras, radios, or other articles of merchandise, in commerce as "COn1l11erce" is defined in the Federal Trade COn1l11ission .. do forthwith cease and desist from:

1, Representing, directly or by implication, that used merchandise is new:

2, Advertising, offering for sale or selling any article of merchandise which has been used or which contains parts or mate.rials which have been used, unless there is clear and conspicuous disclosure of such fact, in all ad yertising and promotion1wl matter on the article by tag, sticker or similar device, and on the sales instrument or receipt given to the purchaser at the time of the sale. 3, Representing, directly or by implication, that any article of merc.handise is guaranteed, unless the nature and extent of the guarantee, the identity of the guarantor and the manner in which the guarantor will perforln their'eunder are clearly and con~ spicuously disclosed in writing to the purchaser at or before the time of sale, 4, Failing to perform fully and with reasonable promptness all of their requirements and obligations under the terms of the guarantee as represented.

CHARIOT TEXTILES CORP, ET AL. 793 789 Complaint t is jtwthe1' onlered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon th81ll of this order, file with the Conmlission a report in writing setting forth in detail the nlanner and forlll in which they have complied with this order.