Boston Sportswear Co

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

unfair methods of comp<'tition.

Before Nr. Charles F. Diggs, trial examiner. Mr. Daniel J. Murphy for the Commission.

Mr. William M. Silt•erman, of Boston, Mass., for Gordon l\Iaid Skirt Co., Inc. and llur'witz & Ilunvitz, of Boston, 1\Iass., for Louis Maltzman.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress, approved Sept('mber 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 having reason to believe that Boston Sportswear Company Robert Hamilt., an individual trading as Bobby Sportswear Company;, Gordon l\Iaid Skirt Company, Inc., Louis Wadman Company, a corporation trading as Oxford Sportswear Company, Louis 1\Ialtzman, an individual trading as Simmons Sports- Wear Company, Schwartz Sportswear Company, Inc., Weatherproof Clothing 1\Ifg. Company, and David A. Sallop, an individual trading ns Peerless Sportswear Company, hereinafter referred to as respond- CO::\DIISSIO~ DECISIOXS 282 FEDER.\L TRADE Complaint 23 F. '1'. C. cnts, luwe bern and are using unfair methods of competition in com· merce as "commerce" is defined in said act, and it appearing to said Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereto would. be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in thn.t respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Said respondent, Boston Sportsn-ear Company, is a corporation organized unller the laws of the State of Massachusetts with its principal office and place of business located at 72 Kneeland Sti·eet, Boston, Mass.

PAH. 2. Sail respondent, Robert Hamilt, is an inuividual trading as the DoLby Sportswear Company with his principal office and place of Lusiness located at 75 Kneeland Street, Boston, Mass. PAn. 3. Said. respondent, Gordon Maid Skirt Company, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts with its principal office and place of business locatetl at 75 Kneeland Street, Boston, Mass.

PAn. 4. Said respondent, Louis ·wadman Company, is a corpora· tion organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts with its principal office and place· of business located at 75 Kneeland Street, Boston, 1\Iass., and doing business under the trade name of the Os· ford Sportswear Company.

P.m. 5. Said respondent, Louis 1\faltzman, is an individual trading as Simmons Sportswear Company with his principal office and place of business located at 75 Kneelanll Street, Boston, 1\Iass. PAn. G. Said respondent, Schwartz Sportswear Company, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts with its principal office and place of business located. at 75 Kneeland Street, Boston, 1\Iass.

PAn. 7. Said. respondent, 'Veatherproof Clothing 1\Ifg. Company, is a. <'orporation organized under the laws of the State of l\Iassa· chusf'tts with its principal office and place of business located at Hu Comt Street, Brockton, Mass.

PAn. 8. Said respon<lent, David A. Sallop, is an individual trading as Peerless Sportswen.r Compn.ny with his principn.l office and place of business located at 1:3!H Dorchf'ster Avenue, Dorchester, Mass. P.An. 9. Each ancl all of the saitl respomle11ts have for more than one year last past been and now are engaged in the manufacture of flannel skirts which the said respondents sell to purchasers located in States other than the State of l\In.ssachusetts, causing said flannel sldrts when sold to be transported from the place of manufacture within the State of Massachusetts to the purchasers thereof locn.tcd in States other than the State of Massachusetts. BOSTON SPORTSWEAR CO. ET AL. 283 281 Findings PAn. 10. Said respondents, on or about October 5, 1935, entered into an understanding, agreement, combination, or conspiracy among and Letween themselves to restrict, restrain, suppress, and eliminate competition in the sale and distribution of flannel skirts to purchasers thereof located throughout the several States of the United States, as aforesaid by agreeing to quote and sell said flannel skirts at a uniform price of $16.50 per dozen. Thereafter each of the said respondents distributed to their respective customers identical written notice to the effect that the price of flannel skirts would be $16.50 per dozen, and that the same had been agreed to by the said respondents and Pursuant thereto sales were made of the said skirts at the price of $16.50 per dozen.

PAn. 11. The result of the acts of the said respondents, as hereinbefore set out in paragraph 10, has been and now is to unduly tend to substantially lessen, restrict, and suppress competition in the interstate sale of flannel skirts throughout the United States and particularly in the New England States where the respondents constitute practically all of the manufacturers of flannel skirts. . PAn. 12. The foregoing alleged acts and practices of the said respondents have been and still are to the prejudice of the buying Public generally and to the retail dealer handling flannel skirts in particular, and constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce Within the intent and meaning of Section 5 of an Act of Congress approwd September 26, 1914, and entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other Purposes."

REPORT, FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS, AND ORDER 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 on April 3, 1936, issued and served its complaint in this proceeding upon the respondents, charging them With the use of unfair methods of competition in commerce in violation of the provisions of said act.

Respondents answered the said complaint, and in said answers admitted the allegations of the complaint and the facts therein set forth to be true and stated that they ·waived hearing on the charges ' . hset forth in the complaint, that they refrain from contestmg t e pro- ?eeding, and that they consented that the Commission mak~, enter, Issue and serve upon them without hearing or other intenemng pro- Cedure findinrrs as to the facts and an order to cease and desist from ' t:> COl\DIISSIO~ DECISIOXS284 FEDERAL TRADE Findings 23 F. T. C. the methods of competition alleged in the complaint. Thereafter the proceeding regularly came on for final hearing before the Commission on the saitl complaint and the answers thereto, and the Commission hn:ving duly considered the same, and being fully advised in. the premises finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public and makes this its findings as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom.

FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS PAR~GRAPH 1. Respondent, Boston Sportswear Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts with its principal office and place of business in Boston, Mass. PAR. 2. Respondent, Robert Hamilt, is an individual trading as the Bobby Sportswear Company with his principal office and place of business in Boston, Mass.

PAR. 3. Respondent, Gordon l\Iaid Skirt Company, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts with its principal office and place of business in Boston, Mass. PAR. 4. The respondent, Louis 'Vadman Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts with its principal office and place of business in Boston, Mass., and doing business under the trade name of the Oxford Sportswear Company. PAR. 5. Respondent, Louis 1\faltzman, is an individual trading as Simmons Sportswear Company with his principal office and place of business in Boston, Mass.

PAR. G. Respondent, Schwartz Sportswear Company, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts with its principal office and place of business in Doston, 1\Iass. PAR. 7. Respondent, Weatherproof Clothing l\Ifg. Company, is a corporation organized under the la\YS of the State of Massachusetts with its principal office and place of business at Drockton, l\Iass. PAR. 8. Respondent, David A. Sallop, is an individual trading as Peerless Sportswear Company with his principal office and place of business in Dorchester, 1\Iass.

PAR. 9. Each and all of the said respondents have for more than one year last past been, and now are engaged in the manufacture of flannel skirts which the said respondents sell to purchasers located in States other than the State of Massachusetts, causing said flannel skirts when sold to be transported from the place of manufacture within the State of Massachusetts to the purchasers thereof located in States other than the State of Massachusetts. PAR. 10. In the course and conduct of their business, the said respondents were at all times herrin referred to in competition with DOSTOX SPORTSWEAR CO. ET AL. 285 281 Order other corporations, firms, associations, and partnerships likewi:;e engaged in the sale and distribution in interstate commerce of similar products.

PAR. 11. Said respondents, on or about October 5, 193.>, ent('re<l into an understanding, agreement, combination, or conspiracy among and between themseh·es to restrict, restrain, suppress, and eliminate competition in the sale and distribution of flannel skirts to pmchasers thereof located throughout the several States of the United States, as aforesaid by agreeing to quote and sell said flannel skirts at a uniform price of $1G.50 per dozen. Thereafter each of the said respondents distributed to their respective customers identical written notice to the effect that the price of flannel skirts would be $1G.50 per dozen, and that the same had been agreed to by the said respondents and pursuant thereto sales were made of the said skirts at the price of $1G.50 per dozen.

PAR. 12. The results of the acts of the said respondents, as hereinbefore set out in paragraph 11, has been to unduly tend to substantially lessen, restrict, and suppress competition in the interstate sale of flannel skirts throughout the United States and particularly in the New England States where the respondents constitute practically all of the manufacturers of flannel skirts. CONCLUSION The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondents under the conditions and circumstances set forth in the foregoing findings am to the prejudice of the public and to competitors of the respondents, and are unfair methods of competition in commerce and constitute a violation of Section 5 of an Act of Congress approved September 2G, 1914, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes." ORDER TO CEASE AXD DESIST The respondents in and by their answers having waived hearings on the charges set forth in the complaint in this proceeding, and having stated in their said answers that they do not contest the said proceeding, and having admitted in their answers the truth of the allegations and facts set forth in the complaint, and having consented in their said answers that the Commission, without hearing or further procedure mi(lht make enter, issue and serve upon said respondents findin(l'sb ' of b fact and conclusion' and an order to cease and desist from the methods of competition charged in the complaint; and the Com· mission being fully advised in the premises: 286 FEDERAL TRADE COl\II\IISSION DECISIONS Order 23F.T.C.

It is hereby ordered, That the respondents, their officers, agents, representatives and employees, in connection with the offering for sale, and sale of their flannel skirts in interstate commerce, forthwith cease and desist from :

(1) Any understanding, agreement, combination or conspiracy among and between themselves to restrict, restrain, suppress, and eliminate competition in the sale and distribution of flannel skirts in interstate commerce, by agreeing to quote and sell said flannel skirts at a uniform price.

(2) Distributing to their respective customers identical notice to the effect that the price of flannel skirts would be at a uniform price. It is further ordered, That within 60 days from the date of the service of this order upon said respondents· that they file with the Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in \which this order has been complied with. METROPOLITAN SURGICAL INSTRUMENT COUNCIL, INC., ET AL. 287 Syllabus