Edinburg Citrus Association

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

IN THE J\UTI'R OF EDINllURG CITRUS ASSOCIATION CONSE T ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO 'rile ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. :2 (c) OF 'rhe CLAYTON ACT Docket C-131. Complaint, May 1962-Decision, May, 1962 Consent order requiring an Edinburg, Tex. , packer of citrus fruit to cease violating Sec. 2 (c) of the Clayton Act by paying commissions to its brokers and other direct buyers purchasing for their own account for resale. Complaint The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to helievc that the party respondent named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly described, has been and is now violating the provisions of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Chtyton Act, as amended (U. Title 15, Sec. 13), hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges with respect thereto as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Ec1inburg Citrus Association is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of thc state of Texas, with its offce and principal place of business located in Edinburg, Tex., with mailing address as P.O. Box 127, Eclinburg, Tex.

, EDINBURG CITRVS ASSN. 1121 1120 Decision and Order PAR. 2. Respondent is now and for the past several years has been engaged in the business of packing, selling and distributing citrus fruit, such as oranges, t.angerines and grapefruit, all of which are sometimes referred to as CitlllS fruit or fruit products. Respondent se.lls and distributes its citrus fruit through brokers, retailers, c.ommission merchants as ,veil as direct, to customers located in many sections of the United States. .When brokers are utilized ill making sales for it, respondent pays them for their services usually at the rate of 10 cents per 1 % bushel box, or the equivalent. Respondent' annual volume of business in the sale and distribution of citrus fruit is substantial.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of its business over the past several years, respondent has sold and distributed and is now selling and distributing its citrus fruit in conuerce, as "coff'merce" is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, as ",mended, to buyers located in the several states of the Lnited States other than the State of Texas in which respondent is located. Respondent transports, or cause such citrus fruit, when sold, to be transported from its place of business or packing plant, or other places within the State of Texas, to such buyers, or to the buyers' customers, located in various other states of the United States. Thus there has beena,t all tinlcs mentioned herein a cont.inuous course of trade in commerce in sa-id citrus fruit across state lines between respondent and the respective buyers of such citrus fruit. PAR. 'i. In the course and conduct of its business as aforesaid, respondent has been and is now making substantial sales to some, but not all, of its brokers and other direct buyers purchasing for their own account for resa.le and on a large nUlllber of these sales respondent paid, gra.nted or allowed, and is now pa.ying, granting or allowing to these brokers and other direct buyers, on their purchases, a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or an allowance or dis count in lieu thereof, in connection therewith. Em. 5. The acts and practices of respondent as above alleged and described are in violation of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended (U. C. Title 15, Sec. 13). DECISION AND ORDER The Commission ha.ving heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as alllencled, and the respondent having been served '''ith notice of said determination and with a copy of the c01nplaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and 1122 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOK DECISIOKS Decision and Order 60 F.

The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agrooment containing a consent order, an 'admission by the respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Cornmission 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 Edinburg Citrus Association is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with its offce and principal place of business located in Edinburg, Tex., with mailing address as P. O. Box 127 Edinburg, Tex.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding a.nd of the respondent. ORDBR It is ordered That the respondent Edinburg Citrus Association, a corporation, and its offcers, agents, representatives and employees directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the sale of citrus fruit or fruit products in commerce, as "commerce is defined in the Clayton Act, as amended, do forthwith cease and desist from:

Paying, granting, or allowing, directly or indirectly to any buyer or to anyone acting for or in behalf of or who is subject to the direct or indired control of such buyer, anything of value as a commission brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, upon or in connection with any sale of citrus fruit or fruit products to such buyer for his own account. I t is further ordered, That the respondent herein shah, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Connnission a report in writing setting forth in detail the D1anner and form in which it has complied with this order.

, MERIT MAXUFACTrR:0G CO., I ,T. , ET AL. 1123 Complaint I N THE 1IA TTR OF MERIT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER ETC. , 1:: REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL, TR\DE CO BnSSJO ACT Docket C-132. Complaint, JIa.y 1962-Dec-ision, May 8, 1962 Consent order requiring distributors of sunglasses, with place of business in Central J- alls, R.I., to cea'5e representing falsely in advertising that lenses of their glasses \were "6 base Tested and Approved" and '; Safe Tested and Approved. . . for Children, gave uSafe P.protection from the Most Powerful Rays of the Sun, and were "Guaranteed for Life; and to disclose the foreign origin of lenses they imported from Japan. CO::IPLAIXT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vestcd in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that bferit itfanufacturing Campa.ny, Inc.., a corporation, and Lionel Rabb, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Ad, and it a.appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its clmrges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Nlerit NIannfacturing Company, Inc. is it corporation organized, Bxisting and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Rhode Island, with its main offce and principal place of business located at 12 Cross Street, Central Falls, R.I.

Respondent Lionel Rabb is an offeer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts and practices of the corporate respondent., including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. His address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. PAR. 2. Respondents n,re now, and for some time last pa.st have been, engaged in the advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of sungla-sses.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents cause, and for some time last past have caused, their sa.id products ,yhen sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of Rhode Island to purchasers thereof located in va.rious other states of the "Gnited States and in the District of Columbia, and maint.ain, ftnc1 at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial 719 -60R--64-- Complaint 60 F.

course of trade in said products in commerce, as "commerce" is defincd in the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR, 4. In the course and conduct of their business, and for the purpose of inducing the sale of their sunglasses, respondents have made certain statements in adve,l'tisements, of which the following are typical but not all inclusive:

6 base lenses Safe Tested and Approyed Lenses for Children Tested and Approved Lenses Safe Protection from the Most Powerful Rays of the SUll Lenses Guaranteed for Life PAR. 5. Through the use of said advertisements, and others similar thereto not specifically set out herein, respondents have represented and arc now representing, dire,c.ly and by implication, that: 1. Said sunglasses are equipped 'Ivith lenses IVith a, plus six diopter curve and a minus six diopter curve. 2. Said sunglasses have been tested ancl approved by an independent and disinterested optometric authority as being safe for children and adults to wear.

3. SRid sunglasses protect the wearer from the harmful rays of the sun.

4. Said slmglasses are guaranteed by respondents in every respect. P AH. 6. The said advertisements were, and are, false, misleading ,md deceptive. In truth and in fact:

1. The curvature of the Icnses in said sunglasses varies significantly from a curve of 6 diopters plus and 6 diopters minus. 2. No independent and disinterested optometric authority has tested and approved saiel sunglasses.

3. Said slmglasses do not completely bar a1l such harmful rays from the eyes and complete protection accordingly is not afforded. 4. Said sunglasses are not guaranteed in every respect; moreover, a service charge is required for repairs, which fact is not disclosed by respondents.

PAn. 7. Certain of respondents' sunglasses are manufactured in Japan and imported into the United States. Said sunglasses are marked in such an indistinct manner as not t.o constitute adequate disclosure of the country of origin. Certain of respondents' sunglasses contain lenses manufactured in .Japan. The fact that said sunglasse, contain Japanese lenses is not disclosed by respondents. PAR. 8. In the absence of an adequate disclosure that a product, ineluding sunglasses, is of foreign Oljgin, the public believes and understands that it is of domestic origin. A substantial number of the MERIT MANUFACTl;RING CO. , Dlc' ET AL. 1125 1123 Decision and Order purchasing public prefer domestic products over foreign products, including sunglasses.

PAR. 9. The failure of respondents to disclose, or adequately disclose the foreign origin of thejr proclucts has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to lllislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said products are of domestic manufacture.

PAR. 10. In the course and conduct of their business, and at an times mentioned herein, respondents have been in substantial competition in COlIlllel'Ce, with corporations, firnls and individuals in the sale of sunglasses of the saine kind and general nature as those sold by respondents.

PAR. 11. 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 purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements a,nd representations were and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

PAR. 12. The aforesaid acts and practiep., of respondents, as herein lleged, were, and are, aU to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unrail' methods of conlpetition in C-0llu1erce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of Section 5(a) (1) of the Federal Trade COlmnission Act.

DECISION A::D ORDER The Commission having he.retofore deten-nined to issue its complaint charging the respondents Jlllned in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Tracie Connnission Act, and the respondents having been served wit.h notice of saiel determination ,and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondents llld cOlllsel for the Connnission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a c-onsent order, an adnussion by the respondents of an the jurisdieLional facts set forth in the cOlnplaint to issue herein, a statelnent that the signing of said agreement is for sett.ement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers a.nd provisions as required by the COlilnission rules; a, 1126 FEDERAL TRADE CO:MISSIQ1\ DECISIONS Decision and Order 60 F.

The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement makes the following jurisdictional filldings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Merit Manufacturing Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Rhode Island, with its offce and principal place of business located at 12 Cross Street, in the city of Central Falls State of Rhode Island.

Respondent Lionel Rabb is a.n offcer of said corporation, and his address is the same as that of saiel corporation. 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 ferit :Manufacturing Company, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Lionel Ra,bb, individually and as an offcer of saiel corporation, and respondents' representatives agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or otller device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale and distribution in commerce, as "commerce is defed in the Federal Trade Conunis. sion Act, of sunglasses, do forthwith ceas and desist from: 1. Repreenting, directly or by implication, that: (a) Lenses of their sunglasses have a given diopter curve unless such is the fact; provided, however, that in the case of ground and polished sunglass lenses a tolerance not to exceed minus or plus V,G diopter in any meridian nuda difference in power between any two meridians not to exceed th diopter and a prismatic e,ffect not to exceed '18th diopter shall be allowed.

(b) Said sunglasses have been tested and approved, unless in fact they have been tested and approved by an independent and disinterested optometric authority.

(c) Sa.id sunglasses will completely prot"2t the eyes of the wearer from the harmful rays of the sun.

(d) Tho sunglasses offcrcd for sale or sold by respondents are guaranteed, unless the terms, conditions rmc1 extent to which such guarantee applies and the manner in which the guarantor will per Iorm thereunder are clearly and conspicuously disclosed. 2. Offering lor sale or seIJing any product which is in whole or substantial part of foreign origin, without. clenxly and conspicuously disclosing on such product or in immediate. connection the.rewith, nncl ADVANCE JUNIOR, Ir-.rC" ET AL. 1127 1123 Complaint if such product is enclosed ina package or container, on the package or container, in such a manner that it will not be hidden or readily obliterated, the country of origi of the product or part thereof. It is further ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after ",rvice upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form