H. Perilstein, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF H. PERILSTEIN, INC.

COMPLAINT AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. ft OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPJtOVED SEPT. 26, 1914 Docket 2112. Complaint, Aug, 11, 1933-order, Nov. 1~. 1933 Consent order requiring respondent, its agents, etc., in connection with the sale or offer for sale in interstate commerce or In the District of Columbia of window glass, to cease and desist from shipping to any purchaser thereof, Panes of window glass of grade or quality " B" as and for window glilss of the grade and quality "A" or from representing in any manner to said Purchasers that common window glass of the grade and quality "B " is of. the grade and quality "A."

Mr. PGad B. Morehouse for the Commission. Englander, Cohen & Korn, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent. Col't!PLAINT Acting in the public interest, pursuant to the provisions of an act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled "An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes", the Federal Trade Commission charges that H~ Perilstein, Inc., a corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has been using unfair methods of competition in interstate comlllerce in violation of the provisions of Section 5 of said act, and states its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, H. Perilstein, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania With its principal place of business in the city of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania. For more than two years last past it has been en~ gaged in trading as a jobber of window glass, trading in its corporatename and also through its branches or subsidiaries under the name and style of "Scranton Plate Glass Company" in the city of Scranton, State of Pennsylvania, and under the name and style of "United Plate Glass Company" in the city of Pittsburgh, State of. Pennsylvania. ·when sold respondent causes window glass to be· shipped in crates from its warehouses in the State of Pennsylvania in, through and to various other States of the United States for delivery to the purchasers thereof. In the course and conduct of its; business as aforesaid respondent is and has been in direct and active· competition with other individuals, partnerships, and corporations: engaged in the sale and distribution in interstate commerce of Window glass.

Complaint lsf.T.C. PAR. 2. In the "flat" or window glass industry there are two principal grades of common window glass, to wit: "A Quality" and "D Quality." The "B" quality is inferior to the "A" quality in that it may contain more defects, more distortions, "waves", "blis· ters ", or "burn spots." It has been the practice in the trade to attach by sticking to the panes of glass a label bearing the symbol "A" when the glass is of that quality and a label bearing no letter symbol when the glass is of" B "quality, by reason of which practice, a purchaser having no notice or knowledge thereof cannot identify a pane of common window glass as being of the " B " or inferior quality upon a casual examination thereof. The price of" B" glass is lower than the price of "A" glass to the jobber, retailer and ultimate consumer and this situation in the trade has resulted in the common practice of substituting" B" quality when "A" quality has been specified.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of its business as aforesaid respondent has been following the practice of selling and shipping to the purchasers thereof panes of common window glass of grade or quality " B " as aforesaid as and for window glass of the grade and quality "A" as aforesaid, and by means of tampering with and changing the markings of the manufacturer stenciled on the crates which respondent has sold and re-shipped to its customers, has deliberately represented to its purchasers that common window glass of the grade and quality "B " is of the grade and quality "A", thereby tending to deceive such ultimate purchasers to their injury and tending unfairly to divert trade from respondent's competitors to respondent.

PAR. 4. On the 27th day of October, 1932, respondent caused to be shipped from its warehouse in Philadelphia a shipment of eight boxes of common window glass to the Buffalo State Hospital in the city of Buffalo in the State of New York, sale of said glass having been made to the said purchaser by respondent through its agent after competitive bidding upon specifications calling for "A" quality window glass. Of said eight boxes five contained window glass of grade "B" quality. On said boxes or crates the manufacturer's grade marking had been removed by scraping or planing and the marking indicating grade "A" substituted therefor. PAR. 5. On the 18th day of November, 1932, respondent caused to Le shipped from its warehouse in Philadelphia, a shipment of five boxes of common window glass to the Buffalo State Hospital in the city of Buffalo in the State of New York, sale of said glass having been made to the said purchaser by respondent through its agent H. PERILSTEIN, INC. 119 117 Order after competitive bidding upon specifications calling for "A" quality window glass. All five boxes contained window glass of grade" B" quality. On said boxes or crates the manufacturer's grade marking had been removed by scraping or planing and the marking indicating grade "A" substituted therefor.

PAR. 6. The acts and things above alleged to have been done, the substitution as aforesaid, the false and misleading representation thereby made by respondent and each of them, are to the prejudice and injury of the public and to competitors of respondent, have the tendency unfairly to divert trade from respondent's competitors to respondent, and constitute unfair methods of competition in com~ lllerce within the intent and meaning of Section 5 of an net of Con· gress entitled "An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes", approved September 26, 1914.

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST This proceeding having come on for final hearing by the Federal Trade Commission upon the respondent's answer filed herein pursuant to paragraph 2 of Rule III of Practice and Procedure of the Commission which said answer refrains from contesting the proceeding, and the Commission being fully ad vised in the premises, It u now ordered, That the respondent, H. Perilstein, a corporation, and its agents, representatives, servants, and employees and each of them, in connection with the sale or offering for sale in interstate commerce or in the District of Columbia of window glass, cease and desist from shipping to any purchaser thereof, panes of window glass of grade or quality " B " as and for window glass of the grade and quality "A" or from representing in any manner to said purchasers that common window glass of the grade and quality "B" is of the grade and quality "A." It is fwrther ordered, That the respondent shall within 60 days from the date of service upon it of a copy 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 herein set forth, FEDERAL TRADE- COMMISSION DECISIONS120 Complaint lsf.T.C.