USA We Care.org

• Main Page
• Introduction
• The Plan
• Disclosure
• Open Disclosure
• Transparency
• Open Marketing
• Deposit Insurance
• $1000 Challenge
• Test Questions
• Equal Opportunity
• Political Suicide
• Family First
• Mandate To Mayor
• Don't Care
• Commentary
• On A Mission
• Epilog

The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) rule implemented in the late 1960's passed in retail selling under door-to-door known as the right to cancel, part 429, #16 shows a lack of consideration for disabled and physically challenged people in our country.

Regulators assessed that one day was not enough time for the consumer to adequately investigate and validate their decision to purchase. Ten days was excessive time, and three business days was fair to everyone except handicapped, shut-ins, and the elderly who are most susceptible to fraud.

This FTC rule known as the 3-day right to cancel is discriminatory due to the one exception that when a consumer physically visits the company establishment and requests an in-home sales presentation (a free estimate), the homeowners relinquish their right to cancel under this old FTC rule. Consumers who purchase at home from a shop-at-home sales representative who do not physically visit a place of business prior to purchasing were given time to evaluate the company they were buying from, to verify the validity of the business.

For most people, 72 hours is a sufficient period of time to physically investigate the business establishment, company history, etc., and cancel the contract if so desired. However, elderly, homebound and shut-in consumers may not be able to adequately investigate a company within the specified period of time. Therefore, this FTC rule regulation does not protect equally those that are physically challenged. This regulation does not offer equal opportunity to many Americans Who Care.

Question Jim W, when and how did you discover that there was a lack of consideration for physically challenged people in the Federal Trade Commission rule #16, part 429?

Answer In the early 70's I was an independent in-home sales broker for a sales company in Philadelphia called the Prime-O-Sash Window Company on Cottman Ave. When this Federal Trade regulation was adopted, I was led to believe that this new FTC rule was going to be strictly enforced, with penalties of $10,000 for both the sales representative and the company for lack of compliance.

I was new in sales, the ramifications of the right to cancel did not concern me, but the old timers who were in this business for years, thought it was going to be the end of their selling careers. Once they would high-pressure someone into a sale, that person would not be able to cancel. It was quite a stir in the company.

On any lead that was generated on either TV or newsprint advertising with one exception, a walk-in. That means when a consumer would open the door on Cottman Ave. and walk in the door, and request an estimate, those salesmen would fight for that customer, because there was an exception to this new regulation, and that is if a consumer would physically request an estimate, by entering the place of business, that the consumer did not have a right to cancel on a cash transaction. Over the years I thought about this. The conclusion is that the 3 day rescission seemed to be a fair amount of time where the average consumer who would purchase a shop-at-home transaction to go and physically investigate the company, and to make a decision on viability and credibility of that company to perform the contract. Where one day wasn't enough, ten days was too many, three seemed to be the right amount of time for the average person to physically make sure there was a company of validity.

Making the exception for a physical visit as such importance that the consumer relinquishes their right to cancel should be understood by all fair-minded people that there was a lack of consideration for homebound citizens and the special needs required for maintaining their property and shopping at home for general home improvement.

In the 1950's and the late 1960's when this trade commission rule was being adopted and enacted, there was a lack of consideration for a lot of people in our country. 50 years ago a lack of equal opportunity and discrimination was tolerated. But times have changed, and we need consideration for all. The existing exemption to the FTC rule for door-to-door selling, rule #429 part 16, was not intentional in the 1960's when it was adopted, just an oversight of the special needs of disabled Americans. An FTC regulation cannot be amended,

ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT WANT TO BRING REAL CHANGE SHOULD BE IN FAVOR OF DISCLOSURE/TRANSPARENCY, WHICH WOULD LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD FOR ALL DISABLED AMERICANS. IF ANYTHING FITS THE CATEGORY OF BEING POLITICALLY CORRECT, THIS DOES. PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED AND HANDICAPPED PEOPLE ARE POLITICALLY ACTIVE.

Americans who care believe…..To further enhance consumer confidence and reduce fraud, we need a Federal Trade Commission regulation rule for product identification and labeling to the sale and delivery of shop at home products, where manufacturers of doors, windows, kitchen cabinets would apply an inexpensive ingredient disclosure label identifying the make-up of the product being delivered for consumer evaluation. This label would have to be in a prominent position with a rule that only the consumer would have the right to remove. Similar to what was enacted in the bedding industry with mattresses pillows and all furniture.

Consumers would then have the ability to evaluate the differences in quality products, and dishonest and incompetent businesses would not be able to deliver a lesser quality than promised. This would enable the manufacturers of quality building products also to compete fairly in the marketplace for the consumer's dollar. The consumer would be assured that what the sales representative promised would be delivered and installed. This will also embolden…..consumer confidence and investment in real estate.

Next Page