The people's voice., 1940-01-10

ufacturers have been served by the
Federal Trade Commission with COM
plants alleging misleading representa-
tions in the sale of tires. The re-
spondents are The Firestone Tire &
Rubber Company and its subsidiary
Firestone Tire & Rubber Company,
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Com
pany, and The B. F. Goodrich Com
pany.
The complaints allege that the re-
spondents conduct nationwide tire
sales through their dealers, causing
advertisements to be placed in news
papers and other periodicals in which
it is falsely represented that the re-
spondents' tires are being sold at vari-
Gus purported discounts from the reg
ular prices, such sales usually being
conducted just prior to Memorial Day,
July a, Labor Day and at other inter-
vals
Firestone Tire G. Rubber Co.
In the complaint against the Fire
stone companies, it is alleged that the
respondents advertised: Save 259o
with the New Firestone Convoy Tire
New High Quality at a New Low
Price-Priced to Save You Money"
For example, in the advertised list Of
sizes and prices appears: "6.00-16
$11.S0." The complaint alleges that
the standard list price of the 6.00-16
Convoy" tire in effect at the time
of the advertisement was S11.80, and
consequently the advertised price of
$11.80 represented no saving what
ever.
1t is alleged that the Firestone COM
panies also advertised that their
STANDARD" tire was to be sold at
discount up to so percent, for exam
pie, the company advertises its 6.00-16
size tire at a price of S798 showing
saving of S6.37 as compared to the
former price" of SLABS and and "in-
cluding your old tire" The COM
plant charges that this tire was not
sold at such discount or at the saving
specified because the former price"
was not the list price in effect at
the time of the advertisement, and
the saving was s237 instead of $6.37
on that size tire. The complaint
were further exaggerated in that they
made no allowance for the customary
trade-in value of the customers old
tires
The Firestone companies allegedly
represented that their Convoy" tube
was a first line tube sold at so per-
cent off, when in fact it was not their
first line tube and was not sold at
so percent off list price of the Con
voy' tube, but instead the alleged
savings were based entirely on the
list price of their higher priced first
line tube and the advertised savings
were false and fictitious.
1t is also alleged that Firestone
companies advertised their High
Speed" tire at 25 percent discount
from the customary price with old
tire, when in fact the saving to the
purchaser was not 25 percent because
the customary 10 percent discount for
used tired was not given. If the Gus
tomary discount had been given, the
saving to the purchaser would have
amounted to only 1913 percent rather
than the advertised 25 percentJ ac-
cording to the complaint.
The complaint also alleges that the
Firestone companies represented that
their tires were proved for safety at
the annual Memorial Day race on the
indianapolis Speedway, when in fact
nd
were not ordinary tires but especially
built racing tires; that non-skid fea-
lures of their tires make it possible
for car to stop "up to 25 percent
quicker" when in fact said tire will
not stop a car 25 percent quicker
than any other non-skid tire, under
all conditions, and that Wilbur Shaw
dents Champion" tires in the 1899
Indianapolis races when in fact they
used specially built Firestone racing
tires which are never sold for use on
passenger cars.
Goodyear Tire G. Rubber Company
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Com
pany allegedly advertised that its
Pathfinder" tire was sold at so
percent saving from the standard list
price, when in fact, for example, the
advertised sales price of $79S for the
6.00-16 size tire represented saving
of 22.S9 percent rather than SO per-
cent, and the advertised saving made
no allowance for usual and customary |
trade-in value of used tires which |
would further have reduced the actual |
saving to 14.3S percent instead of so |
percent.
The complaint continues that the |
Goodyear company, in advertising its |
tire, the Pathfinder,
represented that a so percent dis |
count was available when in fact the |
that was granted was based |
not on the list price of the "Pathfind-
er" but on the list price of its highest
grade tire. The discount on the
" Pathfinder was not so percent but
14.3S percent, after taking into con-
the customary 10 percent
allowance for trade-in value of used
tire, according to the complaint
Concerning its Marathon" tire,
the respondent allegedly advertised a
discount of 40 percent off standard
list price when in fact, for example,
the saving on it's 6.00-16 size tire was
only 20 percent with no allowance
made for used tires. If the 10 per-
cent used tire allowance had been
made, the actual saving to the pul-
chaser would have been 11.15 percent
In stead of 40 narcanf according to