John A. Guziak trading as Superior Improvement Company

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

In tue Martrer oF JOHN A. GUZIAK rrapine as SUPERIOR IMPROVEMENT COMPANY ORDER, OPINION, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket 8614. Complaint, Jan. 20, 1964—Decision, June 28, 1965 Order requiring a Little Rock, Ark., distributor of aluminum and simulated stone siding materials to cease making deceptive pricing and discount representations, falsely guaranteeing its products, misrepresenting that it is connected with any aluminum manufacturer, and representing to any prospective purchaser that his house will be used as a “model home.” CoMPLaIntT 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, having reason to believe that John A. Guziak, an individual, formerly trading through the instrumentality of General Aluminum Company, a corporation, and now trading through the instrumentality of Superior Improvement Company, a corporation, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, has 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 as follows: ParacrapH 1. Respondent John A. Guziak is an individual formerly trading through the instrumentality of General Aluminum Company, a Tennessee corporation with his principal office and place of business located at 680 Third Avenue, South, in the city of Nashville, State of Tennessee, and now trading through the instrumentality of Superior Improvement Company, an Arkansas corporation, with his principal office and place of business located at 1605 Main Street, in the city of Little Rock, State of Arkansas. Par. 2. Respondent is now, and for some time last past has been, engaged in the advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution Complaint 67 F.T.C.

Commissioner Reilly concurring in the decision except for the holding that respondent advertising agency, W. B. Doner & Company, should be included in the order to cease and desist. Commissioner MacIntyre dissented as to that portion of the decision relating to fictitious pricing, and has filed a dissenting opinion.