Opinion ID: 242260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Representations as to the Nature of the Course.

Text: 90 The Commission found that the petitioner's course was not a complete course in reweaving. While the petitioner called his 'Nu-Weaving', his brochures and advertisements describing the course used the word 're-weaving' in such a manner that it would be difficult for a person not knowing how to differentiate between the various types of weaving to know that the lessons did not relate to reweaving. 91 In one of the exhibits, below the title 'Learn and Earn with Nu-Weaving', occurs the following language: 92 'The modern method of Invisible Re-Weaving' In the same brochure it is written: 93 'We furnish everything you'll need to learn. To reweave you must know the 3 basic weaves of cloth.' And at the end, there is this statement: 94 'Reweavers earn as high as $100 a week.' 95 The evidence before the Commission shows that reweaving is difficult to learn. For it involves the taking of the threads identical to the yarn used in the cloth and weaving them into the threads that are in the material itself. The method is known as 'invisible reweaving' or 'French reweaving'. 96 Another method is what it known as 'patch weaving'. It is done with swatches of material. The swatch is placed on top of the material and the threads are pulled from each side and the threads are woven back into the weave of the material, pulled underneath and into the weave of the material so as to give the appearance of one continuous piece. This method is not so satisfactory as the French weaving because, as one witness stated, 'the pattern is broken and is not perfect'. This is also known as 'over-lay'. 97 The third method is known as 'end weaving'. This is done by placing a piece of cloth over the hole, threads are pulled underneath into the weave, so as to make the thread become a part of the material itself. What the petitioner called 'Nu-Weaving' was this third method. It required the use of a special needle to draw the threads fringing the patch through the cloth, and to hook them to the back. It implied, as the petitioner himself testified at the final hearing, the use of a pattern 98 'over the damaged part of the material and interweaving of the fringes of the patch with the undamaged portion of the material so that it appears to be continuous in pattern.' 99 The representations so intermingled the words 'reweaving' with the others that they conveyed the impression that the more difficult form of reweaving was being taught. The Commission was right in requiring the petitioner to desist from representing that his course of instruction constitutes a complete course in reweaving 'unless and until such is in fact true'. 100