Consumer Law LibrarySearchBy decadeBy respondentBy topicBy outcomeDataAbout

International Parts Corporation

Volume 56 · 56 F.T.C. 1564

Citation
56 F.T.C. 1564
Docket
7772
Complaint
1960-02-04
Decision
1960-06-25
Document type
consent order
Case type
consumer protection
Statutes
FTC Act (section 5)
Industry
automobile parts distribution
Outcome
consent order entered
Relief
cease_and_desist; compliance_reporting
Respondent counsel
David. Silbert, of Chicago, I]
Source
Original volume PDF
Original PDF
This decision as a PDF

deceptive advertisingwarranty

Cite this decision

International Parts Corporation, 56 F.T.C. 1564 (1960). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v056-0360

Report an error in this record (decision id v056-0360)

Order status: presumptively_terminable_pre_1995. Sunset may be extended by the latest qualifying federal-court complaint alleging an order violation; complaints, dismissal/appeal outcomes, and respondent-specific extensions are not fully tracked.

Cited by 0 later FTC decisions

Cites

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

In tue Matrer or INTERNATIONAL PARTS CORPORATION ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket 7772. Complaint, Feb. 4, 1960—Decision, June 25, 1960 Consent order requiring a Chicago distributor to cease representing falsely by radio and television, magazine and other advertising script furnished its INTERNATIONAL PARTS CORP. ET AL. 1565 1564 Decision retail dealers, that their automobile mufflers were unconditionally guaranteed for the life of the automobiles on which they were installed. Mr. William A. Somers supporting the complaint. Mr. David. Silbert, of Chicago, I]., for respondents. Inrrrau Decision or John Lewis, Hearing EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on February 4, 1960, charging them with the use of. unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, in commerce, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, by misrepresenting the nature and extent of the guarantee given on the automobile mufflers sold by them. After being served with said complaint, respondents appeared by counsel and entered into an agreement, dated April 5, 1960, containing a consent order to cease and desist purporting to dispose of all of this proceeding as to all parties. Said agreement, which has been signed by all respondents, by counsel for said respondents, and by counsel supporting the complaint, and approved by the Director and Assistant Director of the Commission’s Bureau of Litigation, has been submitted to the above-named hearing examiner for his consideration, in accordance with Section 38.25 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. Respondent's pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, have admitted all the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint, and have agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondents waive any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law, and all of the rights they may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist: entered in accordance with said agreement. It has been agreed that the order io cease and desist issued in accordance with said agreement shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of said order. It has also been agreed that the aforesaid agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the Jaw as alleged in the complaint. This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing consent order, and it appearing that the order provided for in said agreement covers all of the allegations of the complaint and provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding as to all parties, said Decision 56 ET.C.

agreement is hereby accepted and is ordered filed upon this decision’s becoming the decision of the Commission pursuant to Sections 8.21 and 3.25 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings, and the hearing examiner, accordingly, makes the following jurisdictional findings and order: 1. Respondent International Parts Corporation, is « corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois. Respondents Nate H. Sherman, Beatrice G. Sherman, Gordon Sherman and Robert Schroeder are individuals and officers of said corporate respondent. Said corporate and individual respondents have their office and principal place of business located at 4101 West 42nd Place, Chicago, Illinois. 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 said respondents under the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public.

ORDER /t is ordered, That respondent International Parts Corporation, 2 corporation, and its officers, and Nate H. Sherman, Beatrice G. Sherman, Gordon Sherman and Robert Schroeder, individually and as oflicers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of automobile mufilers, or any other product, in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Misrepresenting, in any manner, the nature or extent of the guarantee of a product.

2. Representing that a product. is guaranteed unless the nature and extent of the guarantee and the manner in which the guarantor will perform are clearly disclosed.

3. Placing any means or instrumentality in the hands of others by and through which the public may be misled as to the guarantee of a product.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Comiission’s Rules of Practice. the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall. on the 25th day of June, 1960. become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

71 is ordered, That the respondents herein shall within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission FIELD MUSIC SALES, INC., ET AL. 1567 1564 Decision a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist.

← 56 F.T.C. 1558 · 56 F.T.C. 1567 →