Bond Stores, Inc.
Volume 56 · 56 F.T.C. 716
deceptive advertisingpricing comparisons
Cite this decision
Bond Stores, Inc., 56 F.T.C. 716 (1960). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v056-0155
Report an error in this record (decision id v056-0155)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
In THE MatTTerR or BOND STORES, INC.
ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket 6789. Complaint, Alay 8, 1957—Decision, Jan. 7, 1960 Order requiring the corporate owner and operator of 95 retail clothing stores throughout the United States to cease representing falsely in advertising in newspapers and by radio and television—by such statements as “Bond’s Suit Sale $38.90, $50, $55, $60 values. During Bond’s Big Celebration Sale—you can save up to twenty-one dollars on a beautiful TRU FIT SUIT!"—that during the advertised sale it had reduced its prices to the stated ‘‘sale” prices, that the higher prices followed by the word “values” were its regular prices, and that purchase at the “sale” price resulted in a saving of the difference between the two. Before Afr. Loren H. Laughlin, hearing examiner. Mr. Edward F. Downs for the Commission.
Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler and Mr. Bernard @rossman, of New York City, for respondent.
FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission on May 3, 195%, issued its complaint charging respondent, Bond Stores, Inc., with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act through dissemination of false, misleading and deceptive representations as to prices of clothing advertised for sale. After the filing of answer by respondent, hearings were held in due course before a duly designated hearing examiner of the Commission and testimony and other evidence in support of, and in opposition to, the allegations of the complaint were received into the record. In an initial decision filed April 14, 1959, the hearing examiner held that there is no public interest in the proceeding; that respondent’s practices did not constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act; and that. the proceeding is barred by law as well as being unjust and unfair to respondent. Accordingly, he ordered that the complaint be dismissed. The Commission has considered the appeal filed from the initial Findings 56 F.T.C.
a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist as so modified.