The US Supreme Court reverses a lower court’s decision clarifying competitive injury and secondary price line discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act (Volvo Trucks / Reeder-Simco)

Competitive Injury and Price Discrimination in the United States* In Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc., [1] the Supreme Court provided guidance on whether, under the Robinson-Patman Act, a manufacturer may offer one dealer better prices than another dealer when those dealers bid against each other and only one can win. In the process, the Court raised a more fundamental issue: Does the Robinson-Patman Act require the same degree of injury to competition as the Sherman Act? The Robinson-Patman Act only applies to discrimination in price “between different purchasers” where the effect may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. [2] In prior cases involving sales to dealers that bid against one another for the same sale, some courts

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Mayer Brown (New York)

Quotation

Richard Steuer, The US Supreme Court reverses a lower court’s decision clarifying competitive injury and secondary price line discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act (Volvo Trucks / Reeder-Simco), 10 January 2006, e-Competitions Bulletin Burden of proof, Art. N° 41301

Visites 563

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues