Hunt-Marquardt, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF HUNT-MARQUARDT, INC., ET AL.

COKSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 (f) OF THE CLAYTON ACT Docket 6765. CO?nplal Apr. 1957-Decis' ion, Dec. 23, 1958 Consent order n quiring 14 ew York and New England jobbers of automotive replacement parts and their belying organi7.ation, which served merely as a bookkeeping device to exert their combined bargaining power, to cease violating Sec. 2(f) of the Clayton Act by soliciting and accepting illegal price advantages from suppliers which '.were not available to their competitors.

COMPLAINT The Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that the parties respondent named in the caption hereof and hereinafter more particularly designated and described, since June 19, 1936 have violated and are now violating the provisions of Subsection (f), Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, approved June 19, 19:;6 (U. C. Title 15 Sec. 13) hereby issues its complaint stating its charges with respect therelo as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. (1) Itespondent Hunt-Marquardl, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of MassachuseUs, with its principal omce and place of business located at 244 Brighlon A venue, Boston, Mass.

The following respondent individuals are the offcers of said respondent corporation:

Alfred S. Hunt, president.

Arthur C. Marquardt, treasurer.

H. Nelson Hartstone, secretary.

(2) Respondents George G. Mellor and Raymond W. Mellor are individuals and copartners trading as 1\Te11or 8 Auto Parts with lheir principal oftce ami place of business located al 1:34 Broad Street, Providence, R.

(3) Respondent Standard Auto Gear Co. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with its principal offce and place of business located at 531 Columbia Hoad, Dorchester, Mass.

HUNT-MARQUARDT, INC., ET AL. 911 910 Complaint The following respondent individuals are the offcers of said respondent corporation;

Morris Roazen, president and treasurer.

David Roazen, vice president.

Louis J. Roazen, secretary and assistant treasurer. (4) Respondent, The Tarbell-Watters Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with its principal office and place of business located at 144 Chestnut Street, Springfield, Mass.

The following respondent individuals are the offcers of said respondent corporation:

Lucius H. Tarbell, president.

John S. Leven, vice president.

Clarence E. Trevor, treasurer and secretary. (5) Respondent Auto Electric Service Co. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Hampshire with its principal offce and place of business located at 21 Dow Street, Manchester, N.lI. The following respondent individuals are the offcers of said respondent corporation;

James Pettigrew, president.

Everett P. McAffee, treasurer and general manager. Omar H. Amyot, secretary.

(6) Respondent Farrar-Brown Co. is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws oJ the State of Maine with its principal offce and place of business located at 49 Darthmouth Street, Portland, Maine. The following respondent individuals are the offcers of said respondent corporation:

Frank G. Congdon, president.

Christian Olesen, J r., treasurer.

Franz U. Burkett, secretary.

(7) Respondent Christie & Thomson, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing- business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its principal offce and place of business located at 3 Quinsigamond A venue Worcester, Mass.

The following respondent individuals are the offcers of the said respondent corporation:

Complaint 55 F.

Robert Thompson, president.

William Christie, treasurer.

Abraham Hodes, secretary.

(8) Respondent Grinold Auto Parts, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut with its principal offce and place of business located at 354 Hudson Street, Hartford, Conn. The following respondent individuals are the offcers of the said respondent corporation:

Haymond W. Grinolc1, president and treasurer. Cleo T. (Mrs. R. W. ) Grinold, vice president. Richard E. Ryder, secretary.

(9) Respondent Horton-Gallo-Creamer Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut, with its principal offce and place of business located al 96-104 State Street, New I-laven Conn.

The following respondent individuals are the offcers of the said respondent corporation:

Raymond W. Grinold, president and treasurer. Cleo T. (Mrs. R. W. ) Grinold, vice president. James T. Flen1ing, secretary.

(10) Respondent Hagar Hardware & Paint Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Vermont, with its principal offce and place of business located at 164 Sl. Paul Street. Burlington, Vt.

The following respondent individuals are the offcers of said respondent corporation:

Franl\ J. Whalen, president and treasurer. Geurge 1. Hagar, vice president.

(11) Eespondent Plaltsburgh Motor Service, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of lhe laws of the State of J\ew York, with its principal olIce and place of business located at 95 Bridge Street, Platlsburgh N e\v York.

The following- respondent individuals are the offcers of said respondent corporation:

Walter II. Church, Sr. , president and treasurer. Walter H. Church, Jr. , vice president.

Joseph S. Church, secretary.

, is a corpora- (12) Respondent Detroit Supply Company, Inc. HUNT- !ARQUARDT, DIC., ET AL. 913 910 Complaint tion organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of I\ew York, with its principal office and place of business located at 78-82 Central A venue, Albany, KY.

The following respondent individuals are the offcers of said respondent corporation:

Samuel Weiss, president and treasurer.

Sidney R. Nathan, vice president.

Jacob \:Veiss, second vice president.

Eugene J. !,' athan, assistant treasurer. Sylvan Raab, secretary.

(13) Respondent Wilham T. Mannirw Co. , Inc. , is a corporation organiz€cl, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with its principal offce and place of business located at 133 Pocassct Street Fall River, Mass.

The following respondent individuals are the offcers of said respondent corporation:

William T. Manning, Sr., president.

\Villiam T. lVlanning, Jr. , treasurer.

Margaret C. (:Vlrs. Daniel) Egan, secretary. (14) Respondent Thorpe Automotive Co. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Rhode Island, with its principal offce and place of business located at 61 :'dontgomery Street, Pawtucket IU.

The following respondent individuals arc the ()ffCel S of said respondent corporation:

Luke E. Thorpe, preeident.

\Villiam H. Thorpe, vice president and treasurer. John J. Thorpe, assistant treasurer.

Vincent Thorpe, secretary.

(15) Hesponclent Six- State Associates With principal offce ann place of business located at 285 Ne\vtonville Avenue, Newton Mass. , is an association organized, existing and doing business under the htlvs of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by virtue of a Declaration of Trust effective December :31 , J 948. Said respondent association upon its organization purchased a11 of the assets of Six- State Sales, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusette in October j 947. The tollO\ving respondent individuals are the trustees anrl uffcers of sajd respondent association:

914 FEDERAL TRADE COM:VIlSSI00i DECISIONS Complaint 55 F.

Alfred S. Hunt, president and trustee.

Louis J. Roazen, vice president and trustee. Christian Olesen, Jr., vice president.

Arthur C. Marquardt, treasurer and trustee. PAR. 2. The respondent corporations and the co-partnership set forth in paragraph I , supra, are independent business entities principally engaged in the jobbing of automotive replacement parts and supplies. Since June 19 , 1936 , said jobbers have purchased and now purchase in commerce from sellers, and from sellers engaged in comrner, numerous such parts and supplies for use, consumption or resale within the l:united States and in the District of Columbia, and in connection with such transactions said jobbers have been and are now in active and substantial competition with other" corporations, partnerships firms and individuals also engaged in the purchase for use, consumption or resale of automotive replacement parts and supplies of like grade and quality from the same or competitive sellers. The aforesaid sellers are located in the several States of the United States, and the aforesaid buyers and said sellers cause the parts and supplies so purchased, in manner and method and for purposes as aforesaid, to be shipped an(l transported among and between the several States of the United States from the respective State or States of location of said sellers to the respective State or States of location of the said bu)'ers. PAR. 3. Respondent Six-State Associates, at all times mentioned herein has been and is now nwintainecl, managed controlled and operated by and for the particular jobbers associated together at any given time for the elIectuation of the purchasing policies and practices hereinafter described. Certain of the respondent jobbers have been so associated together since the inception of this course of action by the organization of Six-State Sales, Inc., in 1947. All of the respondent jobbers are currently so associated to Q'either in the continuation of said course of action by respondent Six- State Associates, and each said respondent jobber follo\ving sllch association, adopted, ratified, approved and began taking part in the purchasing- policies and practices hereinafter described.

In practice and elIed, respondent Six- State Associates has been and is now serving as the medium or instrumentality by, through or in conjunction with 'Ivhich said jobbers exert the influence of their combined bargaining power on the competitive commodity sellers hereinbefore described. As a part of their planned com- HUNT-MARQUARDT, INC., ET AL. 915 910 Complaint man course of action, said jobbers direct the attention of said commodity sellers to the potential purchasing power possessed by them acting- in concert and, by reason of such have demanded on their individual purchases discriminatory prices, discounts, allowances, rebates and terms and conditions of sale not otherwise offered or granted by said commodity sellers in such transactions. Sellers not acceding to such demands are usually replaced as Sources of supply for the commodities concerned and such market is closed to them in Javor of such sellers as can be and arc induced to afford the discriminatory prices discounts, allowances, rebates and terms and conditions of sale so demanded.

Said planned common course of action usually includes the demand by said jobbers, among- other things, that acceding sellers shall consider their several purchases in the aggregate for the purpose of granting thereon quantity discounts, allowances or rebates in accordance \with said sellers' established schedulc. When and if this demand is acceded to by a particular seller, the subsequent purchase transactions between said seller and the individual jobbers have been and are billed to and paid for through the aforesaid organizational device of Six-State Associates. Said organization thus purports to be the commodity purchaser when in truth and in fact it has been and is now serving only as agent for the several inlHvic1ual purchasers aforedescribed or as a mere buokkeeping device for facilitating the ind uccment and receipt by the said purchasers from the said sellers of discriminatory and off-scale merchandise pricing. Said Six-State Associates has not functioned and docs not now function as a purchaser for its own account for consumption, use or resale of the commodities concerned.

PAR. 4. Each and all of the respondents aforenamed since June 19 , 1986 , have adopted, followed, and pursued purchasing policies and practices which were knowingly designed and intended to and did induce Jrom such of the aforesaid commodity sellers as acceded, discriminatory and illegal prices, cliscounL::i allowances, rebaies, and terms and conditions of sale favorable to said respondent jobbers 1S aforesaid in the commodity purchase transactions hereinbefore described.

Each and alj of the aJorenamecl respondents in furtherance of the said policies and practices and in connection with the said commodity purchase transactions are and have been utilizing and employing the device uf respondent Six-State Associates, to Complaint 55 F.

induce and receive by, through or in conjunction therewith, from the aforesaid acceding sellers in said transactions, the aforesaid favorable prices, discounts, allowances, rebates, terms and conditions of sale, which were known or should have been known by said respondents to be discriminatory, ilegal and prohibited to said acceding sellers under subsection (a) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act. Each and all of the aforenamed respondent jobbers during the times aforestated made individual purchases of the said commodities upon which and upon the total aggregate of which and otherwise said jobbers knowingly induced and received through use of the aforesaid device substantial monetary amounts in discriminatory and favorable prices, discounts, allowances, rebates terms and conditions of saJe from the acceding sellers in the aforesaid purchase transactions. In 1954 said respondent jobbers made purchases through Six-State Associates in the amount of $932 426. 80 and received rebates in the amount of $107 641.41 from 72 such acceding' sellers. In 1955 such purchases amounted to $1 618 078.12 and rebates totalled $182 753.97 from 78 said suppliers. Except under color of sllch or a similar organizational device, the said favorable discriminatory prices, discounts, rebates, terms (l!1cl conditions of sale were to the kno\,vleclge of said respondents not available to, offered, or granted by saiel sellers or their aforesaid competitors to respondents or respondents aforesaid competitors, nor received by respondents or respondents said competitors in connection \with the aforesaid or like or similar such purchase transactions of the same or similar such commodities of like grRc1c and quality so purchased for consumption, use or resale.

Each and all of the aforesaid discriminatory purchase transactions, so negotiated and made, tend to and do estab)ish the acceding sellers therein as preferred sources of supp)y over competitive i-el1ers not so acceding, for the purchase for consumption use or resale by said respondent jobbers of the commodities concerned, anelio give said jobbers a price advantage over competitive nonfavorec1 buyers as aforesaid in the purchase for consumption, use or resale of the same or similar such commodities of like grade and quality.

PAR. 5. The effect of each and al1 of the aforesaid discriminations in prices induced by each and a11 of the respondents a1'orenamed in each and all of the purchase transactions aforedescribed HU!\T-MARQUARDT, INC., ET AL. 917 910 Decision made in the manner and method and for the purpose aforestated and received in each and all of said transactions by each and all of the respondents as aforedesignated, h,iS been and may be to substantially Jessen competition in the lines of commerce in which the aforesaid acceding sellers, said sellers' competitors, said respondent jobbers, and said jobbers' competitors, a8 aforesaid, are engaged and to injure, destroy or prevent competition with the saill acceding sellers, the said respondent jobbers or with customers of either of them.

PAIL 6. The foregoing alleged acts and practices of said respondents in knmvingly inducing and in knowingly receiving, since June 19 , 1936, the aforesaid discriminations in price prohibited. by subsection (a), Section 2 , of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Rohinson-Patman Act, approved June 19 , 1986 (V. , Title 15, Sec. 18), are in violation of subsection (I', Section 2, of said Act.

A11. Eldon P. Sellnl.) and MI' . Roue?'t 10 17a.lIgllo. 1'01' the Commission.

Gtrr'nan, V088 , Brodbine Connan by 1111' John J. Bl'odbinc and ,VUliington, Cross, Pa.rk McCann by A11. Claude B. C10SS all of Boston, :Mass. , for respondents. INITIAL DEC1SJO)1 BY FKA".K BIER, HEAKI".G EXAMI"1ER Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (f) of Section 2 of the Clayton Aci, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, approved June J9 , 1986 (U. , Title 15 , Sec. 18), the Federal Trade Commission on April 5 , 1957 , issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding against the above-named respondents.

On October 28 1958, after five hearings in October 1957, there was submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner an executed agreement behveen respondents and counsel supporting the COilplaint, accompanied by a subsequently executed motion to amenn said agreement, which motion is signed by all counsel of record and which motion represents that all signatories to the consent agreement (except .James T. Fleming as to \whom this complaint is being dismissed) have consulted \with them and that counsel for responr1ents are specifically authorized by such respondents to join with counsel in support of the complaint in this action Decision 55 F.

providing for the entry of a consent order. Said motion being deemed appropriate, it is herewith granted. By the terms of said agreement, as amended, respondents admit ajj the jurisdictional facts aJJcged in the complaint and agree that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations. By such agreement, as amended, respondents waive any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission; waive the making of findin;!s of fact and conclusions of law; and waive ajj of the ri;!hts they may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance vvith this agreerncnt, as amended. The agreement, as amended, further provides that it disposes of ajj of this proceeding as to ajj parties; that the record on which this initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and this agreement, as amended; that the latter shall not become a part of the offdal record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; that the agreement, as amended is for seitlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alle;!ed in the complaint; and that the following order to cease and desist may be entered in this proceeding by the Commission without , it shall h:lve further notice to respondents, and, when so entered the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearin;!, 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.

Said agreement, as amended, further provides that the foJ1owing individual respondents are (1eceasec1;

Arthur C. Marquardt Morris Hoazen John S. Leven Lucius H. TarheJ1 Frank G. Con;!don Omar H. Amyot Frank J. Whalen and that the fol1ovving listed respondents ,l.re no lOllger connected with an:\J respondent corpor'ltion, and counsel supporting the complaint do not have available any evidence or reason to believe that they will participate in like practices in the future: David Roazen, formerly vice president Standard J\ uto Gear Co. Franz U. Burkett, formerly secretary, Farrar-Brown Co.

HUNT-MARQUARDT, INC., ET AL. 919 910 Decision Robert Thompson, formerly president Christie & Thomson, Inc.

WjJJiam Christie, formerly secretary, Christie & Thomson, Inc.

James T. Fleming, formerly secretary, Horton-Gallo- Creamer Company.

The hearing examiner having considered the agreement, as amended, and proposed order, and being of the opinion that they provide an appropriate klSis for settement and disposition of this proceeding, the agreement, as amended, is hereby accepted the following jurisdictionaJlindings made, and the following- order issued.

1. Respondent Hunt-Marquarclt, Jnc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of iassachusetts with its principal office ami place of business located at 244 Brighton Avenue, Boston, Mass.

The follo\ 'ing respondent individuals are offcers of said rcspondent corporation:

Alfred S. Hunt H. Nelson Hartstone Respondents George G. Mellor and Raymond W. :'dellor are individuals and copartners trading as IVlellor s Auto Parts with their principal omce and place of business located at 131 Broad Street Providence, R.I.

Respondent Standard Auto Gear Co. is a corporation organized. existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusells, with its principal offce and place of business located at 531 Columbia Road, Dorchester, Mass.

Respondent Louis J. Roazen, is an offcer of said respondent corporation.

Respondent The Tarbell-Watters Co. , Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with its principal1 offce and place of business located at 144 Chestnut Street, Springfield, Mass.

Respondent Clarence E. Trevor is an offcer of said respondent corporation.

Respondent Auto Electric Service Co. is a corporation organized existing and doing- business under and by virtue of the laws of Decision 55 F.

the State of New Hampshire with its principal ofiice and place of business located at 21 Daw Street, Manchester, N. The following- respondent indi\'iduals are offcers of said respondent corporation:

.J ames Pettigrew E\'erett P. McAffee Hcspondent Farrar-Ero\vn Co. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jayvs of the State of Maine with its principal office and place of business 10cated at 49 Dartmouth Street, Portland, Maine. Respondent Christian Olesen, J 1', is an offcer of saiel respondent corporation.

Respondent Christie & Thomson, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the C0111110nwea1th oJ Massachusetts with its principal ofIcc and place of busines located at 3 Quinsigamond A venue VV OJ'cester, Mass.

Respondent Abraham Hodes is an offcer of said respondent corporation.

Respondent CrinoId Auto Parts, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and rloing- business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut with its principal offce and place of business located at 354 Hudson Street, Hartford, Conn. The following rcsponclent individuals are ofllcers of the said respondent corporation:

Raymond W. Crinoid Cleo T. (Mrs. R. W. ) Crinoid Hichard E. Ryder Hespondcnt Horton-Galla-Creamer Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut, with its principal offce and place of business located at 96-104 State Street e'v Haven Conn.

The follovdng respondent individuals are offcers of the said respondent corporation:

Raymond V.l. Grinohl Cleo T. (Mrs. R. W. ) CrinoId Hesponrlcnt llagar Hardware & Paint Co. , Inc.. is a corporation organized, exist.ing ancl doing business under and by virtue of the jgWS oJ the State of Vermont, vdth its principal offce and place of husineso located at 16,j St.. Paul Street, Durling-ton, Vt. HUT- MARQUARDT, INC., ET AL. 921 910 Drcision Respondent George I. Hagar is an offcer of said respondent corporation.

Hcsponc1ent Plattsburgh Motor Service, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its principal offce and place of business located at 95 Bridg-e Street, Plattsburgh, N. The following respondent individuals are offcers of said 1'12- Spoil dent corporation:

Walter I-I. Church, Sr.

Walter H. Church, Jr.

Joseph S. Church Hesponclent Detroit Supply Company, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of :'ew York, with its principal offce and place of business located at 78-82 Central Avenue, Albany, N. The follmving respondent individuals are ofiicers of said respondent corporation.

Samuel Weiss Sidney R. Nathan J aeab eiss Eugene J. Nathan Sylvan Raab Respondent Wiliam T. Manning Co. , Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the Commorl"wcalth of l\3ssachusctts, with its principal oftce and place of business located at 13 3 Pocasset Street, Fall Hiver, :Mass.

The Iollowing respondent individuals are offcers of said respondent corporation:

William T. Manning, Sr.

William T. :Vlanning, ,Jr.

Margaret C. (:V'I rs. Daniel) Egan H.respondent Thorpe Automotive Co. is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Hho(1e Jsland, with its principal offce and place of business located at 61 -Montgomery Street, Pawtucket, R.I. The follo\'iing respondent individuals arc offcers of said respondent corporation:

Luke E. Thorpe William H. Thorpe .I ohn J. Thorpe Vincent Thorpe , .

922 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO Order 55 F.

Respondent Six-State Associates with its principal offce and place of business located at 285 Newtonville Avenue, Newton Mass. , is an association organjzed, existing and doing business under the Jaws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by virtue of a Declaration of Trust effective December 31 , 1948. Said respondent association upon its organization purchased all of the assets of Six-State Sales, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in October 1947. The following respondent individuals arc the trustees and offcers of said respondent association:

Haymond W. Mellor, trustee Alfred S. Hunt, trustee Louis J. Hoazen, trustee Christian Olesen, Jr., president 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents. ORDER It is oTdcTed That respondents Hunt-Marquardt, Inc. , a corporation; George G. Mellor and Haymond W. Mellor, copartners doing business as Mellor s Auto Parts; Standard Auto Gear Co. a corporation; The Tarbell-Watters Co., 1nc. , a corporation; Auto Electric Service Co., a corporation; Farrar-Bro"vn Co. , a em"poration; Christie & Thomson, Inc. , a corporation; Grinold Auto Parts, Inc., a corporation; Horion-Galla-Creamer Company, a corporation; Hagar Hardware & Paint Co. , 1nc. , a corporation; Plattsburgh Motor Service, Inc., a corporation; Detroit Supply Company, Inc. , a corporation; William T. Manning Co. , Inc. , a corporation; Thorpe Automotive Co. , a corporation; Six-State Associates, a Massachusetts trust; and following individuals; Alfred S. Hunt, Louis J. Hoazcn, Chrislian Olesen, J1" , H. Nelson Hartstone, Clarence E. Trevor James Pettigrew, Everett P. Mc- Affee, Abraham Hodes, Haymond W. CrinoId, Cleo T. Grinold Hichard E. Hyder, George I. Hagar, Walter H. Church, Sr., Walter H. Church, Jr. , Joseph S. Church, Samuel Weiss, Sidney R Nathan Jacob Weiss, Eugene J. Nathan, Sylvan Haab, Wiliam T. :'1anning, Sr., Wilham T. Manning, Jr. , Margaret C. Eg'LI, Luke E. Thorpe, Wiliam II. Thorpe, John J. Thorpe, and Vincent Thorpe, their offcers, agents, representatives and employees in connedion with the offering to I-JUrchase or purchase of any automotive products or supplies in commerce, as "commerce " is defined in lhe Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: HUNT-MARQUARDT, INC., ET AL. 923 910 Decision Knowingly inducing or knowingly receiving or accepting any discrimination in the price of such products and supplies, by directly or indirectly inducing, receiving, or accepting from any seller a net price known by respondents to be below the net price at which said products and supplies of like grade and quality arc being sold by such seller to other customers, where the seller is competing with any other seller for respondents' business, or where respondents are competing with other customers of the seller.

For the purpose of determining " net price" under the terms of this order, there shall be taken into account discounts, rebates allowances, deductions or other terms and conditions of sale by which net prices are effected.

It is further Q?'de?'d That the complaint be and it hereby is dismissed as to respondents Arthur C. Marquardt, Morris Roazen Lucius n. Tarbell, John S. Leven, Omar H. Amyot, Frank G. Congdon, Frank J. Whalen, David Huazen, Franz U. Burkett Robert Thompson, William Christie, and James T. Fleming. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 23d day of December 1958, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

It is ordel That a11 of the respondents herein, except those , shall, within sixty as to whom the complaint has been dismissed (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.

924 FEDERAL TRADl; COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision 55 F.

IN Tile MATTER OF B. GREEN & COMPANY , IJ\C.

CO.:SENT ORDER, ETC. , 1 RECAHD TO T1H.: ALLEGED VIOLATJUN OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT TJackel 7!di(j. COJiploi/it, Oct. J , lY58--1ecision, Dec. 2.1 , 1958 Consent order requiring a distributor in Baltimore, I\Jrl., to cease violating the Oleomargarine Ame:lclment to the Federal Tracll' Commission Act by listing " 1)(') F;n' " mal' garine in newspflper advertisements along with cheese, milJ" iOggs, and butter under such headings as " Dairy Produc and "Tablet.'rite Dairy Values " or otherwise suggesting in advertising that the (J)(' onHll' g-arine was a daily proulict. 1111'. l11o'/ton Nes'ii;ilh for the Commission. Respondent, for itself.

INITIAL DF:CISIO", BY AB"'ER E. LIPSCO , HEARING EXA'\INER The c.omplaint herein was issuell on October 1958 , charging respondent \with representing 01' suggesting that its Del Farm Margarine is R clairy proc1ud, by plaein ! advertisements thereof under the heading of "clairy products" in newspapers and otherwise, and by intermixing such advertisements between the adverti ements of dairy foods. Respondent' s advertisements, so disseminated, al' alleg:ed to be misleading in material respects and to constitute false advertisements as defined in S15 (a) (2) of the Fetleral Trade Commission Ad, an(l unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, in violation of saiel Act Thereafter, on October 2. , 1958, respondent and counsel supporting the complaint herein entered into an Agreement Containing Consent Onler to CEase and Desist, which was approved by the director and an assistar:t director of the Commission Bureau of Litigation, and thereafter submiUe(l to the hearing examiner for conEicleration.

The agreement identifies rcspoll(lent B. Green & Company, 1 fll. as a :\'iaryland corporation, with its principal offce antl place of business localccl at. 2200 Winchester Street., Baltimore, :VId. pondent admits all the jurif,dictional fads alleged in the complaint, and agrees that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been duly ma(h in accordance with such allegations.

Respondent waives finy further procedure before the hearing y :

H. GREEN & COMPANY. mc. 925 924 Ordcr examiner and the Commission; the mahing oj findings oj fact and conclusions of Jaw; and al1 of the rights it may have to chal1cngc or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with the agreement. All parties agree that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shan consi t solely of the complaint and the agreement; that the order to cease and desist, as contained in the agreement, \,,'hen it shall have become a part of the c1edsion of the Commission, shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, and may De allered modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders; that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of said order; and that the agreement is for settement purposes only, and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that it has violated the law as alleged in the complaint. After consideration of the allegations of thf: complaint and the provisions of the agreement and the proposed order, the hetlring examiner is of the opinion that such order constitutes a satisfactory disposition of this proceeding. Accordingly, in consonance with the terms of the aforesaid agreement, the hearing examiner accepts the Agreement Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist; finds th 1t the Commission has jurisdiction over the respondent and over its acts an(l practices as alleged in the complaint; and finds that this proceeding is in the public interest. Therefore It is unlered That the respondent B. Green & Company, Inc. a corporation, its offcers, representatives, agents and employee directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection \with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of Del Farm 1\1 a1'g-arine, or any other margarine or oleomargarine, whether sold under the same name or any other name, do fort.hwith cease and desist from, directly or inc1irectl 1. Disseminating, or causing- to be disseminated, b:v means of the Vnitec1 States mail or by any other means in commerce, as commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, any advertisement which contains any sb.tem€nt. \yon1 , grade designation, design, device, symbol, sound, or any c.combination thereof \which represents or suggests that saiel product is a dairy product; 2. Disseminating, or causing to be disseminated, by any means, for the purpose of inducin, or which is likely ' to induce. directly or indirectly, the purchase in commerce, as "commerce oj said product is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act Decision 55 F.

any advertisement which contains any of the representations prohibited in paragraph 1 of this order.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section ;0.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 23d day of December 1958, become the decision of the Commission; and accordingly:

It is ordered That respondent B. Green & Company, Inc. , a corporation, shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it 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 to cease and desist.

HENBERG' , INC., ET AL. 927 Decision