Lester B. Patterson

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

IN THE MATTER OF LESTER B. PATTERSON ET AL.

TRADING AS SKIL- WEA VE CO., ET AL CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN Rf'GARD TO TIn; ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COM::ISSrON ACT Docl:et 7318. Complaint, Noru. , 1 US8-Decision, May 20 195.9 1 Consent order requiring' Chicago-o sellers of a correspondence course in reweaving to cease advertising falsely the ea3C of learning reweaving through their course, and overstating potential carning-s and business opportunities for persons completing it; and Complaint was dismissed on Kav. 7, 1959, as to respondent advertising agency and an offcial thereof.

Before 1111'. TValtcr R. Johnson hearing examiner. Mr. Edward F. Downs and Mr. John .T. Mathias for the Commission.

Nash Donnelly, by Mr. John A. Nash of Chicago, Ill. , for respondents Lester B. Patterson and Edythe F. Patterson, eopartners trading- and doing business as Sku-Weave Co. INITIAL DECISION AS TO CERTAIN RESPONDENTS In the complaint dated November 26 , 1958 , the respondents Lestel" B. Patterson and Edythe F. Patterson, copartners trading and doing business as Skil-vVeave Co. are charged with violating the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act. On March 4, 1959, the above-named respondents and their attorney entered into an agreement with counsel in support of the complaint for a consent order.

Under the agreement, respondents admit the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint. The parties agree, among other thing-s, that the cease and desist order there set forth may be eniered wiihout further notice and have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, and the document includes a waiver by respondents of a1l rig-hts to challenge or contest the validity of the order issuing in accordance therewith. The agreement further recites that it is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. The respondents Grant, Schwenck & Baker, Inc., a corporation 1 Publbhed as Inodified July 7, 1959, SKIL- WEA VE CO., ET AL. 1825 1824 Order and Paul Grant, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, are not parties to the aforementioned agreement and are subj ect to further proceedings.

The hearing examine!" finds that the content of the agreement meets all of the requirements of Section 3. 25 (b) of the Rules of the Commission.

The hearing examiner being of the opinion that the agreement and the proposed order provide an appropriate basis for disposition of this proceeding as to said respondents, the agreement is hereby accepted and it is ordered that the agreement shall not become a part of the offcial record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission. The following jurisdictional findings are made and the following order issued.

1. Respondents Lester B. Patterson and Edythe F. Patterson are copartners trading and doing business as Skil-\Veave Co. with their principal offce and place of business located at 335 West Madison Strect, Chicago, Ill.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondents Lester B. Patterson and Edythe F. Patterson, copartners trading and doing business as Skil- Weave Co., or under any other name, and respondents ' agents representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection \with the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of courses of instruction 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 invisible French re\veaving can be learned easily or quickly through the study of respondents' correspondence course of instruction;

2. That it is easy to learn reweaving, or that one can become an expert reweaver by taking respondents' course of instruction unless restricted to the patch or overlay method of reweaving; 3. That the potential earnings for persons completing respondents' course of instruction are greater than they are in fact; 4. That the certificate issued to individuals who have completed respondents' course or the use of the trade mark " Skil- Weave" qualify an individual as a skilled reweaver; 1826 DERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOKS Decision 55 F.

5. That persons completing respondents' course can successfully operate a reweaving business or can expect to receive substantilll orders from homes, cleaners or department stores. DECISION OF THE COMMISSIOK AS TO LESTER B. PATTERSON AND BDYTHE F. PATTERSON, COPARTNERS TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS AS SKIL-WEAVE CO. A:-D ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE The Commission having considered the initial decision of the hearing examiner wherein he accepted an agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist executed by respondents Lester B. Patterson and Edythe F. Patterson, copartners, trading and doing business as Skil-Weave Co., as well as by respondents counsel and by counsel supporting the complaint, service of which initial decision was completed on April 17, 1959; and It appearing that the initial decision may be deficient in that it fails to incorporate the substance of certain pertinent provisions of the agreement of the parties;

It is ordered That said initial decision be and it hereby is amended by inserting between the second and third paragraphs thereof the following" paragrllph;

Under the agreement, respondents admit the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint. The parties agrec, among other things, that the cease and desist order there set forth may be entered without further notice and have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, and the document includes a waiver by respondents of all rights to challenge or contest the validity of the order issuing" in accordance therewith, The agreement further recites that it is for settement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleg-ed in the comphlint. It is furthe)' ordered That the initial decision as so modified shall, on the 20th day of May 1959, become the decision of the Comnlission.

It is fu)'ther orde)'ed That the respondents Lester B. Patterson and Edythe F. Patterson, copartners, trading and doing business as Skil-Weave Co. , 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 contained in said initial decision.

SKIL-WEA VE CO" ET AL, 1827 1824 Decision Before Mr. Walter R. Johnson hearing examiner. Mr. John J. Mathias and Mr. Edward P. Downs for the Commission.

M1' . Charles F. Sh01. , h. of Bn.mdage Short of Chicago 111., for respondents Grant, Schwcllck & Baker, Inc. , a corporation, and Paul Grant, individually and as an offcer of said corporation.

INITIAL DECISION AS TO RESPONDENTS GRANT, SCIIWENCK & BAKER, INC. , AND PAUL GRANT In the complaint dated November 26 , 1958 , the respondents Lester B. Patterson and Edythe F. Patterson, copartners trading and doing business as Ski I-Weave Co., and Grant, Schwenck & Baker, Inc. , a corporation, and Paul Grant, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, are charged with violating the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Hearings were held in Chicago, Ill., on March 2 and 3 , 1959 at which time testimony and evidence was offered on behalf of the Commission. The attorneys in support of the complaint did not close the case-in-chief and no testimony or other evidence was received on behalf of the respondents. On iarch 4 , 1959, the respondents Lester B. Patterson and Edythe F. Patterson and their attorney entered into an agreement with counsel in support of the complaint for a consent order which was accepted by the hearing examiner in an initial decision and which, with modifications, on May 20, 1959, became the decision of the Commission, The said order was further modified by the Commission on July 7, 1959, The respondents Grant, Schwenck & Baker, Inc. , and Paul Grant were not parties to thc aforementioned agreement. On July 29, 1959 , counsel supporting the complaint filed a motion to dismiss as to respondents Grant, Schwenck & Baker, Inc., and Paul Grant, reading:

COMES NOW counsel supporting the complaint and moves that the complaint be dismissed as to respondents Grant Schwenck & Baker, Inc. , and Paul Grant, for the following reasons:

The Commission, in ils decision dated May 20, 1959, as modified by a Commission order dated July 7, 1959, has prohibited respondents Lester B. Patterson and Edythe F. Patterson, copartners trading and doing business as Skil-Weave Co. , from engaging in the practices set forth in the complaint. 1828 FEDERAL TRADE CO'li\!ISSIO" DECISIONS Decision 55 F.

Two days of hearings were held in this matter for the reception of evidence in support of the charges of the complaint as to Grant, Schwenck & Baker, Inc., and Paul Grant. The record, insofar as it concerns said respondents' participation in the practices alleged in the complaint, is complete. The record does not contain suffcient evidence to substantiate the charges against respondents Grant, Schwenck & Baker, Inc., and Paul Grant.

Additional investigation conducted subsequent to the issuance disclosed thatof the complaint and the aforesaid hearings has there is not suffcient evidence available to make a record which would support a cease and desist order against the above-named advertising agency and its offcer.

In view of the above, counsel supporting the complaint feels that the complaint should be dismissed as to respondents Grant Schwenck & Baker, Inc. , and Paul Grant. The hearing examiner considering said motion and being fully advised in the premises fllds there is not suffcient evidence in the record to substantiate the charges against the respondents Grant, Schwenck & Baker, Inc., and Paul Grant. -is O?'de,.ed That the complaint herein be, and the same It hereby is, dismissed as to the respondents Grant, Schwenck & Baker, Inc. , a corporation, and Paul Grant, individually and as an offcer of said corporation.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION Pursuant to Section 3. 21 of the Commission s Rules of Prac- , on the tice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall 7th day of November 1959, become the decision of the Commission. COKSUMER DRUG CORP., ET AI" 1829 Decision