Joseph Jimenez

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

IN THE l\IATTER OF JOSEPH ,JIMENEZ ET AL. DOING BUSINESS AS CREDIT TV SEHVICE COl\' SEXT ORDER, ETC. , Ii\f REGARD TO Tile ALLEGED VJOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\IlIISSIOX _\CT Docket 6.531. Compla.int. Nar. 19.56-Decision. .June, 1956 Consent order requiring two individuals in "\Vashington. D. C. , to cease misrepresenting their charges for servieing and repairing TY sets in the home and misrepresenting shop estimates as free. Defore 111T. RobeJ't L. Piper hearing examiner. J/l'. llIichae7 J. TTita.le for the Commission. radsha. r;'heai'in: Reddillg (6 Thomas of Silycr Spring, )Id., for respondents.

CO:\JPL\I);'T Pursuant to the p1'oY1sions of the Federa) Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority yesteel in it by said Act, the Federal Tra.de C0lle1issioll, llfn"ing re,ilson to uelicyo th lt .J osep11 Jimenez and Catherine .Jimenez, indiyic1nals, trading and doing business as Credit TV Seryic.e, hereinafter refcrrcd to as respondents, have violated the prm-i8jol15 of said Act and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof ,yould be in the public interest, hereby issues -its complaint, stating its charges in that respect as follmys :

PARAGR.\.PH 1. Respondents .Joseph .Jimenez and Catherine Jimenez are indivi(lnals trading ilnd doing business as Credit TV Service. Said respondents cooperate and act together in performing the acts and practices hereinafter set. forth. Their offce and principal phtce of business is located at 1361 II Street, \Vashington, D. C. PAR. 2. Respondents, for more than one year last past, have been engaged in the sale and distribution of television replacement parts. An essential a.nd integral part of respondents' said business is the furnishing of television l'cpa. ir services. In conne.c.ion with their television repair service respondents remove television sets from the homes of Q\vners located in the District of Colmnbia and in the State of )'laryland, and transport. said television sets to thpir repair shop, which is located in the District of Columbia. , for servicing and replacement of parts said parts being furnished and sold by respondents after which the tele"ision sets are delivered to the owners at t.their places of residence.

1494 FEDERAL TRADE COMJ\fISSIOX DECISIONS Complaint 52 F. T. C. Respondents maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a course of trade in their said business in commerce in the District of Columbia and between the District of Columbia and the State of Iarylancl. Their volmne of business in said commerce has been and is substantial.

P AH. 3.. At all tin;Jcs mentioned herein respondents have been, and are now, in direct and substantial competition in commerce with other corporations, firms and individuals engaged in a similar business. PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of their aforesaid business, respondents have made certain statements and representations concerning said business by means of advert.isements in ne\vspapers. Among and typical of the statements and representations made in such adver tising is the follo\Ting:

Ir. and ::lrs. TV Owner ATTENTION 991 House 991 Call all makes serviced in your home or in our shop. rree shop estimates.

Picture Tube Weak? 1Ve wil rejuvenate your picture tnue in your home. All makes serviced.

Call for immediate service 9 A. 10 P.

including Sunday Call LI 7-4925 CUEDIT TV SERVICE Va. and Md. Slightly Higher PAR. 5. By t1d through the use of the aforesaid statements respondents represented, directly or by implication: 1. That the service charge for servicing and repairing a television set in the home is 99 2. That shop estimates are free.

PAR. 6. The aforesaid statements and representations were false deceptive and Inisleading. In truth and in fact: 1. The charge for servicing or repairing a television set in the home is greatly in excess of the represented amount of 99 CREDIT TV SERVICE 1495 1493 Decision 2. R.respondents make a charge whenever a shop estimate is glven and the set is not left for repair.

PAR. 7. The use by the respondents of the aforesaid false, deceptive, and misleading statements, represent.ations, and practices had the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive a substantial portion of persons owning television sets into the erroneous and mistaken belief that sllch statements a,nd representations were and are true, and to induce said persons to have respondents service and repair their television sets because of such erroneous and 'mistaken belief. As a result thereof, substantial trade in comnlerce has been unfairly diverted to respondents from their competit.ors and substantial injury has been and is being done to competition in commerce8. PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, arc all to the prej uc1ice and injury of t.he public and of respondents competitors and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. INITIAL DECISION BY HOBERT L. T'U' , HEA1UNG Ex. 1-fIXER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on :JIarch 21 , 1956: charging them with hitting violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. After being served with said compbint, respondents appeared by counsel and entered,c1 into an agreement, dated April 12: 1956, containing a consent order to cease and desist, disposing of all the issues in this proceeding without hearing. Said agreement has been submitted,d to the undersigned, heretofore duly designated to act as hearing examiner herein for his consideration in accordanee with Section 3.25 of the Rules of Practice of the Commission.

Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, have admitted all of the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if frndings of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondents waive all further procedural steps before the hearing examiner or the Commission, including the making c11allengc orof findings of fact or conclusions of lavi' and the right to cont.est the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with such agreement. It has also been agreed that the record hrn,in shall consist solel ! of the complaint and said agreement, that the agreement shall not become fl, part of the offcial record unless and that saiduntil it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission, agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not. constitute an admission by respondents thn,t they have violated the la,v as alleged 1496 FED.ERAL TRADE co:\'nnSSION DECISIOXS Decision 52 F. T. C.

in the complaint, that said order to cease and desist shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a. full heariner and may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order.

This proceeding having 11m, come all for iinal consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing the consent order and it appearing that the order and agreement cover all of the allegations 01 the complaint and provide for appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the same are hereby accepted and ordered filed UpOll becoming part of the Commission s decision pursuant to Sections 3. and 3.25 of the Rules of Practice, and the hearing examiner accordingly makes the foJ1mying findings, lor jurisdictional purposes, and order:

1. Respondents tT oseph .J iUlenez and Catherine ,J iUlenez are individuals trading and doing bW3iness as Credit TV Service, with their offce and principal place of business Jocated at 1361 H Street, K. 1Vashington, D. C.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against saidl'cspondents under the :Federal Trade COlnmission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public.

ORDER It i8 ordered. That respon(le.nts . Joseph .Jimenez and Catherine Jimenez, individuals, trading and doing business as Credit TV Service, or trading and doing business under any other name or names, and respondents represenhLtives, agents and employees, directely or through any corporate 01' other device, in connection with the offering -Cor sale, sale and distribution of replacement purLs ior television sei-s itnc1 other merchandise, or repair services in connection therewith.h, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from representing, directly or by implication:

1. That the charge, for selTicillg or repairing is DDif or any other amount 'which is not in accordance with the facts. 2. That there is no charge lor estimates Inade in the shop, when such is not the fact.

DECISION OF THE CO:iI1IlSSlON AXD O1mer TO FILE REPORT OF CO.MPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Ilules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 9th day of June, 1956, beco ne the decision of the Commission; a.nd, accordingly: CREDIT TV SBHVICE 1497 1493 Decision It is ordered That the respondents herein shall within 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 the order to cease and desist. 1498 FED.ERAL TRADE CO:VLVIISSION DECISIONS Complaint 32 F. T. C.