Ralph Rupley

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

IN THE ~LATTER OF HALPH RUPLEY TRADING AS RALPH RUPLEY ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER , ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE.. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8424. Complaint, June 1961-Decision, Sept. 1961 Consent order requiring Houston, Tex., furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to label and invoice fur products with the true. animal name of the fur used therein, failing to show on invoices the country of origin of imported furs, and failing in other respects to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements; by advertising in newspapers which represented prices of fur products as reduced from usual prices which were in fact fictitious, and contained earlier compared prices without giving the time of the latter; and by failing to maintain adequate records as a basis for price and value claims.

COMPLAINT Pursuant. to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason believe that Ralph Rupley, an individual trading as Ralph Rupley, Rnd Carl Stephanow, individually and as manager of the Ralph Rupley concern, and Ralph Ii,upley, Jr., individually and as assistant to the manager of the Ralph Rupley concern hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts find he Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Ralph Rupley is an individual trading as Ralph Rupley with his ofiice and princi pal place of business located at 1000 ~Iain Street, I-Iouston, Texas. Carl Stephanow is an individual and manager of the Ralph Rupley concern with his office and principal place of business located at 1000 M:ain Street, IIouston, Texas. Ralph Rupley, Jr. is an individual and assistant to the manager of the Ralph Hnp1ey concern 'with his ofi-iee and principal place of business located at 1000 fain Street, I-Iouston, Texas. The said Ralph Rupley, Carl Stephftll0W and. Ralph Rupley, Jr. control, direct ftnd formulate the acts, practices and policies of the Ralph Rupley concern. PAR. 2. Subsequent. to the effective date of the Fur Produc.ts Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sa.le, ill commerce, and in the tra.nsportation and clistri- , RALPH RUPLEY ET AL. 517 516 Complaint bution, in commerce, of fur products; and have sold, advertised offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and received in co.mll1erce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which failed:

(1) to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) Information required under Section 4(2) ~f the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form in violation of Rille 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was mingled with non-required information, in violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations. ( c) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on labels with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing diffe.rent animal furs, in violation of Rule 26 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondents, in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated theredeceptively invoiced furunder. Included among such falsely and to suchproducts, but not limited thereto, were invoices pertaining fur products which failed:

of the fur used in the fur (1) To show the true animal name product;

(2) To show the country of origin of imported furs used in the fnr product.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoieec1 in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoic.ec1 in accorcb.nce with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that information required under Section Complaint 59 F.

5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that respondents caused the dissemination in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Act, of certain newspaper advertisements, concerning said products, which were not in accordance with the provisions Section 5 (a) of the said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated therewlder; and which advertisements were intended to aid promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products.

P..m. 8. Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid but. not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the I-Iouston Post, a newspaper published in the City of Houston, State of Texas, and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the United States. By means of said advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not spe.cifically referred to hereih, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements: (a) Represented prices of fur products as having been reduced from regular or usual prices wlw.re the so-called regular or usual prices were in fact fictitious in that they ,were not the prices at which said merchandise was usually sold by respondents in the recent regular course of business, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (a) of said Rules and Regulations. (b) Contained earlier compared prices without giving the time of such earlier compared prices in viol ation of Rule 44 (b) of said Rules and R.egulations.

PAn. 9. R.esponc1ents in advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid made claims nnd representations respecting prices and vnlues of fur products. Said representations were of the type covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) nnd (d) of R.ule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act. R.esponc1ents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full find adequate. records disclosing the facts upon ,,-which such claims and representations were b~sec1 in violation of Rule 44 (e) of said R.ules and ReguIntions.

PAR. 10. The n.foresa.id acts and prfletices of respondents~ as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

RALPH RUPLEY ET AL. 519 516 Decision ilfr. Robert lV. Lowthian. supporting the complaint. Bracewell, Reynolds ill Pattenon" by ilir. Grant Cook Houston Tex., for respondents.

INITIAL DECISION BY LEON R. GROSS HEARING EXAMINER On June 2, 1961, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, the Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents, charging them with violating the aforesaid Acts and the Rules and Regulations issued pursuant to the Fur Products Labeling Act by, intel' alia misbranding, failing to label properly, falsely and deceptively invoicing, and falsely and deceptively advertising fur products sold by respondents in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the aforementioned Acts. A copy of the complaint was served upon respondents as required by law.

Thereafter, respondents appeared by counsel and entered into an agreement dated July 25, 1961, which was presented to this Hearing Examiner on August 8, 1961. The agreement purports to dispose of all of the issues in this proceeding as to all of the parties, and has been signed by all the respondents, their counsel, and counsel supporting the complaint. The agreement has been approved by the Director the Assistant Director, and the Chief, Division of Enforcement, of the Bureau of Textiles and Furs of the Federal Trade Commission. Said agreement contains a proposed consent cease and desist order which purports to dispose of this proceeding without the need for formal hearings. The agreement conforms to the requirements of ~ 3.21 and ~ 3.25 of the Federal Trade Commission s Roules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings, and contains: A. An admission by respondents of all jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint;

B. Provisions that:

(1) The complaint may be used in construing the terms of theorder;(2) The order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing;

(3) The agreement shall not become a part of the official record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission.

(4) The entire record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission may be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement;

(5) The order may be altereel, modified, or set aside in the manner provided for other orders;

.

Ord~r 59 F.

C. Waivers of:

(1) The making of findings of fact or conclusions of law; (2) Further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission;

(3) Any right to challenge or contest the validity of the order entered in accordance with the agreement;

D. A statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. Having considered the complaint and the agreement, including the proposed order, and being of the opinion that it provides an appropriate basis for disposition of this proceeding in all respects, the hearing examiner hereby accepts the agreement, which shall not become of thea part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part decision of the Commission; makes the following jurisdictional fuldings; and issues the following order:

1. Respondent Ralph Rupley is an individual trading as Ralph Rupley, with his office and principal place of business located at 1000 ~lain Street, Houston, Texas. Carl Stephanow is an individual and manager of the Ralph Rupley eoncern, with his office and principal place of business located at 1000 1\lain Street, Houston, Texas. Ralph Rupley, Jr. is an individual and assistant to the manager of the Ralph Rupley concern, with his office and principal place of business located at 1000 1\lain Street, Houston, Texas. The said Ralph Rupley, Carl Stepha-now and Ralph Rupley, .Jr. control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the Ralph Rupley concern. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. 3. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondents under the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act.

4. This proceeding is in the interest of the public. ORDER It 'is onle1' That Ralph Rupley, an individual trading as Ralph Rupley or under any other trade name, and Carl Stephanow, individually and as manager of the Ralph Rupley concern, and Ralph Rupley, to the manager of the Ralph Rupley Jr. individually and as nssistant concern, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, direct 1y or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduct.ion into cornmercp or the sn le, advertising, or oflering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering , RALPH RUPLEY ET AL. 521 516 Decision for sale, transportation, or distribution of fur products which are made' in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: ~1isbranding fur products by :

A. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible an the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of S 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act; B. Setting forth onla.bels affixed to fur products: 1. Information required under ~ 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form;

2. Information required under S 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information;

C. Failing to set forth separately on labels affixed to fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs theinformation required under S 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect. to the fur comprising each section;

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of S 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act;

B. Setting forth information required under ~ 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form;

3. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of fur products, and which: A. Represents directly or by implication that the regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount which is in excess of the price at which respondents have usual1Jy and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business;

B. Contains earlier compared prices without giving the time of such earlier compared prices;

C. Misrepresents in nny manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents' fur products;

4. Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there Complaint 59 F.

are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based. DECISION OF THE CO~Il\nSSION 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 19th day of September 1961 become the decision of the Commission; and aecordingly :

It is ordered That the above-named respondents 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. I::-r TI-IE 1\1A TTER JOSEPH ROTHENBERG, INC.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2( c) OF THE CLAYTON ACT Docket 8060. Co1nplaint, July 1960-Decision, Sept. 20, 1961 Consent order requiring a Bu1!alo commission merchant of citrus fruit and produce to cease violating See, 2 (c) of the Clayton Act by accepting from Florida suppliers unla Willi brokerage on his own purcbases for resale, sucb as a discount at the rate of 10 cents per 1 % bushel box, or a lower price reflecting such commission.

COUPLAINT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the party respondent named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly described, has been and is now violating the provisions subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended (D. Title 15, Section 13), hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges with respect thereto as follows:

-\RAGRAPl-I. 1. Respondent ,Joseph Rothenberg, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue the b,ys of the State of New York: with its office and principal place of business located at I-1G Niagarn Frontier, Buffalo: New York. PAR. 2. Respondent is now, and for the past several years has been, engaged in business primarily ns a wholesale grocer or commission merchant, buying, selling and distributing for its own account citrus fruit and produce, as 'yell as other food products, all of which are hereinafter sometimes referred to as food products. Respondent JOSEPH ROTHENBERG , INC. 523 ..522 Decision purchases its food products from a large number of suppliers located in many sections of the United States. The annual volume of business done by respondent in the purchase and sale of food products is substantial.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of its business for the past several years, respondent has purchased and distributed, and is now purchasising and distributing, food products in commerce, as "commerce" defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, as amended, from suppliers or sellers located in several States of the United States other than the State of Ne" Y or1\:, in which respondent is located. Respondent transports or causes such food products, when purchased, to be transported from the places of business or packing plants of its suppliers located in various other States of the United States to respondent who is located in the State of New York, or to respondent' s customers located in said State, or elsewhere. Thus, there has been at all times mentioned herein a continuous course of trade in commerce in the pure-hase of said food products across state lines between respondent and its respective suppliers or sellers of such products. PAn. 4. In the course and conduct of its business for the past several years, but more particularly since January 1 , 1959, respondent has been and is now making substantial purchases of food products for its own account for resale from some, but not an, of its suppliers, and on a large number of these purchases respondent has received and accepted, and is now receiving and accepting, from said suppliers a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or an allowance or discount in lieu thereof, in connection therewith. For example, respondent makes substantial purchases of citrus fruit from a number of packers or suppliers located in the State of Florida and receives on said purchases, a brokerage or commission, or a discount in lieu thereof, usually at the rate of 10 c.ents per 13/5 bushel box, or equivalent. In many instances respondent receives a lower price from the supplier which reflects said commission or brokerage. PAR. 5. The acts and practices of respondent in receiving and accepting a brokerage or a c.ommission, or an allowance or discount in lieu thereof, on its own purchases, as above alleged and described, are in violation of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as ame.ndec1 (D. C. Title 15, Section 13).

DECISION AND ORDER This matter having come on to be heard by the Commission upon ru ree-ord consisting of the Commission s compla.int charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with viobtion of subsection (c) , .

Order 59 F.

of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended, and an agree.ment by and between respondent and counsel supporting the complaint, which agreement contains an order to cease and desist, an admission by the respondent of all the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint, a; ~tat.e.ment that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes: only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that it has: violated the law as alleged in the complaint, and waivers and provi~ ~iQn$ as req~ired by the Commission s r1,lies; and The Commission having consjdered the agreement and order contained therein and being of the opinion that the agreement provides an adequate basis for appropriate disposition of the proceedings, the agreement is hereby accepted, the following jurisdictional findings are made, and the following order is entered: 1. Respondent Joseph Rothenberg, Inc., is a corpora60n existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located in the City of Buffalo, State of New York, with mailing address as 146 Niagara Frontier, Buffalo, New York.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent. ORDER I t is ordered That respondent Joseph Rothenberg, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, agents, representatives, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the purchase or citrus fruit or produce in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: Receiving or acce.pting, directly or indirectly, from any seller, anything of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, upon or in connection with any purchase of citrus fruit or produce for respondent' s own account or where respondent is the agent, representative, or other intermediary acting for or in behalf, or is subject to the direct or indirect control of any buyer.

It is f1lrther ordc.red That the respondent herein 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 this order.

MICHIGAN FRUIT CANNERS, INC. 525 Complaint