City Sewing Machine Company, Inc
Volume 77 · 77 F.T.C. 698
deceptive advertisingpricing comparisonswarranty
Cite this decision
City Sewing Machine Company, Inc, 77 F.T.C. 698 (1970). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v077-0101
Report an error in this record (decision id v077-0101)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
In tee Matrer or CITY SEWING MACHIN E COMPANY, IN C., ET AL. CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE © FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket C-1747: Complaint, June 1, 1970—Decision, June 1, 1970 Consent order requiring a Marysville, Kansas, retailer of sewing machines to cease using deceptive prices, failing to maintain adequate records to support its pricing practices, using contests and other promotional devices deceptively to obtain leads, misusing the term “automatic” to describe its sewing machine, falsely guaranteeing its products, and misrepresenting that it has posted bond in support of its guarantees. ComrvaiInt Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that City Sewing Machine Company, Inc., a corporation, and Lee R. Dam, individually and as an officer of said corporation, 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 would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:
Paracrarn 1. Respondent City Sewing Machine Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kansas, with its principal office and place of business located at 818 Broadway, in the city of Marysville, State of Kensas. .
Respondent Lee R. Dam is an individual and an officer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and prac- Complaint V7 ¥.T.C.
emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order. . It is further ordered, That the respondents herein shall, wathin 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 this order.