Josef Meisels

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

IN THE "fA'ITR OF JOSEF MEISELS TRADING AS .J. MEISELS CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO '.rHJ.: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COllIlIISSIOX AXD THE .1'UR PROD"GCTS LABELI G ACTS Docket C-ioll. Compla-int, Mar. 1962-DeaLsion, Mar. , 1962 Consent order requiring a ew York Gity furrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failng to show on invoices the true animal naIle of furs and when furs were artificially colored; invoicing rabbit fur as Sealene Beaverette, and "Cone-y; failing to set forth the terms Persian Lamb" dyed :Mouton Lamb", and "secondhand" where required; and failing in other respects to comply with invoicing requirements. COl\IPLAIKT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority yested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, Imving reason to believe that Josef ThleiseJs, an individual trading as J. )Ieisels, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under tllO 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. Respondent Josef Meisels is an individual trading as J. yIciscls, with his principal offce and place of business located at 130 ,Vest 29th Street, New York PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, and more especially for the past seven year.s, the respondent has been and is now engaged in the introduc- , 610 FEDE.RAL 'frade COl\l\nSSlO:\ DECISIONS Complaint no F.

UOH into COlJ1nerce, and in the sale, advertising flnd otfel'ing fol' sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in COllUllerce of fur products; and has sold, advertised, oflered 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 c.Ol1nW1'ce; and has introduced into commerce, sold tdvertised and offered for sale in commerce, and transported a,nd distributed in commerce, furs, (18 the terms "commerce, "fur" and "fni' product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Paint. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that there was not on or affxed to said fur products any label showing any of tbe information required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Ad and the Rules and HegulatiollS promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 4. Certain of said furs and fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent in that they "ere not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Laheling Act and the ltules and Regulations pron1uJgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced furs and fur product;. but not limited thereto, were invoices pertaining to such furs and fur products which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of t.he fur used in the fur product or the true animal name of the fur.

2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products \nls bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored \"hen such was the fact. m. 5. Certain of said furs and fur procluets \were fa13E'ly and c1r.cept.ively invoiecd in that they were falsely and deceptively ic1entif-ir(l \with respect to the Home of the animal 01' animals that produced the fur in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling ct. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced furs and fur products but not lilnitecl thereto, were furs and fur products invoiced with the names "Sealene Beaverette" and ' Coney" to describe Rabbit. \H. G. Certain of said furs and fur products were falsely add deceptively invoiced in viola6on of the Fur Products La.beling ..\.ct in that they ,were not invoice,d in accordance \with the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the fol1u\Ying respects: (a) Information required lUlder Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Prod- Hcts Labeling Act and t.he Hldes and Reg111atjons promulgated thereunder \vas set forth jll abbrmTiated 10rm: in violation of RnJe 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

J \yas not set forth in the manner 1'0- (b) The term "Persian Lamb quired, in vioJntion of Rule 8 of said Rules and Hegulations. , J. :\IEISELS 611 609 Decision and Order (c) The tCl'll " dyed '1\iouton LamV 'nis not set forth in the n"lllnel' required in violation of Hule 9 of the said Rules and Hegulations. (d) The names of fictitious and non-existent animals, narncly "Sealeno" and "Beaverettet, were used in invoicing furs and fur products in violation of Rule 11 of the said gules and Regulations. (e) The disclosure "secondhancl" where required, was not set forth on invoices relating to fur products, in violation of Rule 23 of said Rules and Regulations.

(f) Required item numbers of fur products "ere not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Hegulations. \H. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent as herein a1Jeged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair nnd deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondent having been served with notice.e of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commissioll intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having therertfter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that the In w has been violated as set forth in the complaint, and waLn rs and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement makes the following jurisdictional findings and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Josef :Meisels is an individual trading as J. Meisels with his principal offce and place of business located at 130 1Yest 29th Street, New York, N.

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

719-603-64---0 612 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO:\T DECISIONS Decision aud Order GO F.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent Josef Meisels, indiridually aud trading as J. ::lei8e18 or under any other trade name, and responclenfs representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transport.ation, or distribution, of any fur product which is made in \\hole or in pa.rt of fur which has been shipped a"nd received in commerce; or in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, ac1ertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur, as "commerce, fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. )Iisbranding fur products by failing to affx labels io fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing furs or fur products by: A. Fa-lling to furnish invoices to purchasers of furs or fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of tbe subsections of Section i\ (b) (1) of t.he Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Setting forth on invoices pertaining to furs or fur products any form of misrepresentation or deception, directly or by implica tion, as to the name of the animal or animals which produced the fur. (c) The te.rm "dyed )louton Lamb:' was not se.t forth in the manner required in violation of Rule 9 of the said R.ules and Hegulations. (d) The names of fictitious and nonNexistent animals, namely Scalene:: and "'Beaverette, ,,,ere used in invoicing furs and fur products in violatjon of Rule 11 of the said Rules and Regulations. (e,) The disclosure "secondhand", where required, vms not set forth on invoie('s relating to fur products, in violation of Rule 23 of said Rnles and Hegll1ations.

(f) Required item numbers of fur products were not set forth on invoices, in violat.ion of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 7. The nforesaicl acts null practices of respondent, as herein nl1egecl, are in yiolntion of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Bules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and clecepti,-e acts and practices ancll1nfair methods of competition in comme.rce under the Federal Trflde Commission Aet. TAX , Th, ET AL. 613 Complaint IN THE lIUTrR OF TENAX, lnc., ET AL.

COXSEXT ORDER , J' TC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOL.. TION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE C03f1fISSION ACT Docket C-l03. (Jonl/Jlnint ..1(/, 1", 26". 1962-Decision ..Iar, , 1.962 I,tlse-nt order requiring the corporate operator of a freezer food purchasing plan through 10 wholly' O\nled subsidiaries in large easterIl cities, along with its a(hertising agency, to ('ease misrepreseIlting the cost of the freezers and food purcllased under their plan and tbe savings involved, and mal;:ng a Htriety of other decepth"e practices as in the order uelo\\ indicated. CO:CIrL.-\XT Pursuant. to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, Imving reason to believe that Tenax, Inc. , a corporation, and Leon C. Hirsch and Peter R. Ross, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and The Jretlis and Lebow Corporation a corporation, and Stanley E. Lebow and Sanford II. Mellis, incli- 'ichml1y and as officers of said corporate.ion, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said 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 ns follows:

PAR.\GJL\T'H 1. Respondent Tenax, Inc. (formerly knmvn as :l\metropolitan Food Sel' ice Corp. and as Federate.d Foods Corporation), is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under' and by virtue of the laVIS of the State of Kew York with its principal offce and place of business Joca.tecl at 575 Lexington Avenue, Kew York Respondents Leon C. Hirsch and Peter R. Hoss are offcers of said corporate.ion. They formula.te, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of said corporate respondent" including the acts and pract.ices hereinafter set forth. Their address is the same as that of respondent Tenax, Inc.

These respondents, hereinafter referred to as respondents Tenax are now, and for some time last past have been, engaged in the advertising, oflering for selle and sa.le of home food freezers and in the so1icitatioll of subscribers to a freezer food purchasing plan through the follo\Ying ,,-holly-mYl1ed subsidiary corporations: Federated Foods of ,Vnshington Inc., 1Vashington C. (formcr1y Capital Home Food Senice Corp.

614 FEDE.RAL 'trade COMMISSION DECISIONS COllplaint GO F.

Fedcl'ted Foods of Iarylllnd, Inc., Baltimore Id. (formerly Delmar Food Service Corp.

Federated Foods of Philadelphia, Inc. , l'philadelphia, I'll. (formerly Penn-Stanchlrd Food Corp.

Massachusetts Federated Foods, Inc., Boston, .NIass. (formerly Yankee Food Service Corp.

Federated Foods of New Jersey, Inc., New York, K. Y. (formerly Thrift Food Senice Corp.

Federated Foods of Rhode Island, Inc., Providence, RL Federated Foods of Pennsylvania, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pa. Thor Food Service Corp., New York )i.

Budget Fooel Service Corp., New Y ork 1\.

Federated Foods of Connecticut, Inc.

PAH. 2. In the course and conduct of their business as aforesaid respondents Tenax nmv cause, and for some time last past have caused, the freezers sold by thmn to be shipped from their warehouse in the State of Ke,', York, or from the state where such freezers are manufactured, to ,yarehouses ma,intainecl by respondents Teu,lX in the various other states of the United States, llnd in the District of Columbia, where their subsidiary sales corporations e located. In many instances the aforesaid subsidiary sales corporations have shipped and have caused the aforesaid freezers, when sold, to be shipped to the purchasers thereof, IIlauy of whom are located in states of the United States other than the state of origin of said shipment, and in the District of Columbia. They have also caused the shipment of foods to subscribers to the freezer food purchasing plan many of ,,,hom are located in states of the United States other than the state of origin of said shipments.

Hespondents Tenax maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade, as aforesaid, in C011merce, as :'commerce" is defmed in the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, at all times Illentionec1 herein, respondents .Tenax ha.ve been in substantial competition, in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of freezers and freezer food purchasing plans. PAH. 4. Respondent The Met1is and Lebow Corp. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la ws of the State of )i ew York, with its principal offce and pl""e of business located at 200 ,Vest 57th Street, New York Y. This respondent is an advertising agency and is now and for some time last past has been thc advertising representative of the respondents Jllmed in paragraph 1 hereof. As such it prepares and places and TE)jax, INC. , ET AL. 615 613 Coml11aint has prepared and placed acb e.rtising material used by the aforesn.id respondents, including that he.reinafter referred to to promote the sale of the aforesaid hol11 food freezers and freezer food purchasing plan.

Iiespondents Stanley E. Lebow and Sanford H. "'letlis are of!cers of The Metlis and Lebow Corpomtion. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of said corporate respondent including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. Their address is the sanle as that of said corporate respondent. PAR. 5. The respondents act i.n conjunction and cooperation with ono another in the performance of the acts and practices hereinafter alleged.

PAR. G. In the course and conduct of their business respondents 11a n3 disscminn,t.ed and caused the dissemination of certain advertisements by the L:united States mails find by various means in commerce including but not 1imiteel to radio and television broadcasts, as "commeece:' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, for the purpose of inducing and which ",were likely to induce directly or indireedy, t.he purchase of food as the term "food" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, anel have disseminated and caused the dissemination of advertisements by various means, including those aforesaid, for the purpose of inducing and \\,which were likely to induce directly or indirectly, the purchase of food in commerce, as "com merce:: is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. \R. 7. By means of advertisements disseminated as aforesaid and b:v the oral statements of sales representatives respondents have represented, directly or by implication:

1. That all of the subsidiary sales corporations of Tenax, Inc., are l'ngaged in the purchase and resale of foods. 2. That for $14.99 a week or other stated amounts purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan win receive all their food require1nents nnd a freezer.

;3. That purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food for thephn will receive the same amount of food and a freezer same or less money than they have been paying for food alone. 4. That trained "llome Economists" will assist purchasers of or subseribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan in planning their food orders.

5. That a 11 food orders are delivered free of charge. 6. Tha.t purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freeher food plan recei ve one or several it.ems as a. free gift. FEDERAL TRADE 1:nSSIOX DECISIONS616 Complaint GO 1". '1.

7. That purchasers of 01' subscribers to the aforestlid freezer food plan ca.ll "trade- " their old refrigerator thus reducing the amount to be paid to respondents Tenax.

8. That purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan receive an enclosed cabinet for storing foods. 9. That the freezers received by purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan are self-defrosting. 10. That purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid frcezer food plan make one monthly payment which covers both food and freezer. 11. That purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan can have their contracts financed through financial institutions of their own choosing.

12. That purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan pay the standard or list price for their freezer. 13. That purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan can sign blank contracts with the assura,nce that when such contracts are filed in the terms and conditions of sale as set forth therein will be the same as agreed upon and disclosed at the time of sale. PAR. 8. The advertisenlents disseminated as aforesaid were and are misleading in material respects and constituted, and now constitute false advertisements" as that term is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the aforesaid statements and representations are false, misleading and deceptive. In truth and in fact: 1. Not all of the subsidiary sales corporations of respondent Tenax In many il1Inc., a.re engaged in the purchase and resale of foods. stances food orders submitted by subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan are filled by others than respondents Tenax or their subsidiary sales corporations.

2. Purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan do not receive a freezer and all of their food requirements for $14. a week or for the other amounts stated in the aforesaid advertisements. :3. Purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan do not receive a freezer and the same amount of food for the same or less money than they have been paying for food alone. 4. The individuals sent to help purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan in planning their food orders are not Home Economists". They have not had sufficient or proper training to 'warrant caning them "Home Economists 5. An food orders are not delivered free of charge. 6. Purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan do not receive a free gift. The price charged by respondents Tenax ET AL. 617 613 Complaint for their free.zers contains a high enough mark-up to coyer a part 01' all of the cost of the so-called free gift. 7. In some instances purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan have been informed that their old refrigerator ,vould not be taken as a trade- in.

8. Purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan do not receive an enclosed cabinet for storing foods. What they receive is a set of shelves which are open on all sides. 9. J\fany purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan have received freezers that were not. self-defrosting. 10. Purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan are required to make two monthly payments, one for food and one for the freezer.

11. In many insta-nces the contracts of purchasers of or subscribers to the aforesa.id freezer food plan are financed through financial institutions other than those chosen by such subscribers. 12. The price paid by purchasers of 01' subscribers to the aforesaid freezer food plan for the freezer is in excess of the standard 01' list price of said freezers. The mauufacturer s suggested list prices for the freezers sold by respondents Tenax range from $273. 00 to $350 depending on the capacity and model thereof, whereas respondents Tenax charge $999. 95 plus $39.05 for "Free labor for oue year if re pairs or adjustments are necessar:/: plus credit charges and interest. 13. A1I of the terms and conditions of sale are not always disclosed at the time of sale. In many instances when contracts which have been signed in blank are filled in, the terms and conditiolls of sale as set forth therein are not the same as agreed upon and disclosed at the time of sale.

PAR. 9. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the pnrchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations were and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of frccr,ers and freezer food plans from respondents Tena.x and of food, by reason of said erroneous and mistaken beJid.

PAR. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein allcgecl, including the dissemination by respondents of false advertisements as aforesaid, were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents TPlUlXh competitors and constituted a.nd now constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in commerce, ,vi thin the. intent 618 FEDE-RAL TRADE CO:YL'vnSSIOX DECISIONS Decision and Order GO F.

and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act and in violation of Section 5 (a) (1) of said Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The C011111i8sion having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together ",with a proposed fOflll of order; and The respondents and cOllnsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is forsetdement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission rules; and The COlTlnission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts smue, issncs its complaint in the form contmnplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the fol- 'ing order:

1. Respondent, Tenax, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Yark, with its offce and principal place of business located at 575 Lexingtnn Ayenne, in the city of Kew York, State of New York. Respondents Leon C. Hirsch and Peter R. Ross are offcers of said corporation, and their address is the same as that of said corporation. Respondent, The Metlis and Lebow Corporation, is a corporation organized, exist.ing and doing business under and by vi rtne of the la ws of the State of Xew York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 200 'V. 57th Street, in the city of New York, State of Xew York.

Respondents, Stanley E. Lebmy and Sanford H. Metes, are offcers of sai(l corporate.ion, and their address is thc same fis that of said corporation.

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

TE),TAX , I),TC. , ET AI.. 619 613 Decision and Order ORDER PAIlT I , Ine., a, corporation, The It ,is ordered That respondents Tenax JIetlis a.nd Lebow Corporation, a corporation, and their offcers, and Leon C. Hirsch and Peter R. Ross, individually and as officers of Tenax, Inc., and Stanley E. Lebow and Sanford H. Metlis, inclividually and as offcers of The )Ietlis and Lebow Corpora,tion, and respondents' agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection ,with the offering for sale, sale, or distribution of any food or any purchasing plan involving food, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Disseminating or causing to be disseminated any advertisement by means of the United States mails or by any means in commerce as "comnlerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Conll1ission Act, which advertisement:

Inc. (a) Represnts that any subsidiary of respondent Tenax, is engaged in the purcha.so and resale of food when the subsidiary to which such advertisement relates is not engaged in the food business; (b) Represents that purchasers of or subscribers to a freezer food purchasing plan will, for a stated price, receiyc aJ1 of their food requirements and a freezer;

(c) Represents that purchasers of or subscribers to a freezer food purchasing plan will receive foods or other items \\'which ate not anlilable under said plan, and which they do not actually recci ve; (d) Hepresents that purchasers of or subscribers to a freezer food purchasing plan 1\i11 receive the same amount of food, and a freezer for the same or less money than they have been paying for food alone; (e) )iisrepresents in any manner the savings realized by purchasers of or subscribers to any freezer purchasing plan; (f) Hepresents that purchasers of 01' snbscribers to a freezer food purchasing plan will have the assistance or help of tra.ined "Home, Economists" or other qualified individuals in planning their food orders;

(g) Represents that food orders are deli,' cred free aT charge ,,,hen purchasers of or subscribe.rs to 11 freeze.r food purchasing plan are required to make pa.ymentsTor the delivery of food orders; (h) Represent.s that purchasers of 01' subscribers to a freezer food purchasing plan receive a Tree gift;

(i) Represents that purchasers of or subscribers to a freezer food purchasing plan can ';trade- :' their old refrigerator or freezer when Decision and Order 60 F.

t.he subsidiary to which the advertisement relates does not accept old J'cfrige,rators or freezers as trade-ins;

(j) 3lisrepresents the physical clHtracteristics or qualities of any article or item received by purchasers of or subscribers to a freezer food purc1msing plan;

(k) Represents that purchasers of or subscribers to a freezer food purchasing plan receive self-defrosting freezers; (I) Represents that pmchasers of or subscribers to a freezer food purchasing p1nn make but one monthly payment covering both food and freezer.

2. Disseminating or causing the dissemination of any advertisement by any means for the purpose of inducing or which is likely to induce, directly or indirectly the purchase of any food or any purchasing plan involving food in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federa.1 Trade Commission Act, which advertisement contains any of the representations or misrepresentations prohibited in paragraph 1 hereof.

PART II 1 tis jul'he1' m'dered That respondents Tenax, Inc., a corporation The letlis and Lebow Corporation, a corporation, and their offcers and Leon C. Hirsch and Peter R. Ross, individually and as offcers of Tenax, Inc., and Stanley E. Lebow and Sanford H. Metlis, indiidually and as offcers of The Metlis and Lebow Corporation, and respon(lents agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of freezers, food or a freezer food purchasing phm in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Representing directly or by implication that: (a) Any subsidiary of respondent Tenax, Inc., is engaged in the purchase and resale of food, when such subsidiary is not engaged in the food business;

(b) PnrchaSl'l"s will, for a stated price recei,-e all of their food requirements and a freezer;

(c) Purchasers wi1 1'eoei,-e food or other items which are not available, and ,which they do not actually receive; (cl) Pnrc.hnscl's ,,,ill rccej,- e the same amount of food and a freezer (or t.he SHIne or less money tlum the.y have been paying for food alone; (e) Purchasers ,will ha,-e. the assistance or help of trained "Home Economists: or other qualified individuals in plnnning their food orders;

TENAX, !XC, ) ET AL. 621 613 Decision and Order (f) Food orders are delivered free of charge, when purchasers are required to make payment for the delivery of food orders; (g) Purchasers receive a free gift;

(h) Purchasers from any subsidiary of Tenax, Inc., can "tradetheir old refrigerator or freezer, ,,'hen such subsidiary does not accept old refrigerators or freezers as "trade-ins (i) Purchasers receive self -defrosting freezers; (j) Purchasers of or subscribers to a freezer food purchasing plan Inake but one monthly payment covering both food and freezer. 2. :Misrepresenting in any manner:

(a) The savings realized by purchasers of or subscribers to a freezer food purchasing plan;

(b) The qualities, appearance or physical characteristics of any article or item received by purchasers.

PAR'r III It is fwrther ordered That respondent Tenax, Inc., a corporation and its offcers and Leon C. I-lirsch, and Peter R. Ross, individually and as offcers of TenRx, Inc. , and their agents, representatives and enlployees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of freezers, food or freezer food purchasing plans in commerce, as "commerce:' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act ao forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Representing that purchasers of or subscribers to a freezer food purchasing plan, or purchasers of food or freezers, can have their installment cont,racts financed through financial institutions of their own choosing, unless where such a representation is made such contracts are in fact financed through the institut.ion chosen by such purchasers or subscribers;

. Representing in any manner that the price charged for any freezer or refrigerator-freezer is the standard or list price thereof; 3. Inducing purchasers of or subscribers to a freezer food purchasing plan, or purchasers of food or freezers, to sign any contract to purchase which does not at that time contain an of the terms and conditions of sale.

It i8 fu,lther' ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (GO) days after service upon them of this order, tile with the. Commission a report. in writing setting forth in detail the rno.nner and form in "which they have complied with this order. 622 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISION& Complaint 60 ,"