The Retail Buyer and the Robinson-Patman Act

Edgar Barton, Chairman of the Clayton Act Committee's Subcommittee on the Robinson-Patman Act of the American Bar Association, on April 4, 1963, as a panel participant in “Symposium: The Supreme Court and the Robinson-Patman Act,” Antitrust Bulletin, IX: 1 (Jan.–Feb. 1964), 78.

United States v. New York Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 67 F.Supp. 626, 676–677 (E.P. Ill., 1946).

Standard Oil Co. v. FTC, 340 U.S. 231 (1951), Transcript of Oral Argument, Oct. 9, 1950, p. 88.

Best and Co., Inc., Trade Reg. Rep. (FTC Complaints, Orders, Stipulations) para. 17,363 at 22,580 (1965). This action was brought under Sec. 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

If the buyer remains in the store after leaving a given department, he will naturally be compared to his successor.

Edwards Corwin D. , The Price Discrimination Law (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1959), p. 626.

Revzan David A. , Wholesaling in Marketing Organization (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961), p. 561.

Patman Wright , Complete Guide to the Robinson-Patman Act (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), p. 163.

See Sawyer Albert E. , Business Aspects of Pricing under the Robinson-Patman Act (Boston, Mass.: Little Brown and Company, 1963), pp. 7–8.

Schelling Thomas C. , The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 111–115. A focal point is here considered a point that is prominent and conspicuous. Some qualitative characteristic or characteristics distinguish a focal point from the surrounding alternatives.

For example, see Admiral Corp., Trade Reg. Rep. (FTC Complaints, Orders, Stipulations) para. 17,230 at 22,308 (1965).

There might be a few exceptions where a store will overpay on one model knowing that it is underpaying on other models. This would not, however, appear to be a regular practice.

Automatic Canteen v. FTC, 346 U.S. 61,62 (1953).

Barton , op. cit., p. 40.

Duncan Delbert J. Phillips Charles F. , Retailing: Principles and Methods (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1963), p. 323.

Wingate John W. Friedlander Joseph S. , The Management of Retail Buying (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), p. 298.

Duncan Phillips , op. cit., p. 329.

Davidson William R. Brown Paul , Retailing Management (New York, N.Y.: The Ronald Press, 1960), p. 482.

Jerrold Van Cise, former chairman of the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association, panel participant on April 4, 1963, in “Symposium: The Supreme Court and the Robinson-Patman Act,” op. cit., p. 37.

Automatic Canteen Co. v. FTC, 346 U.S. 61, 74 (1953).

Ibid., p. 79–80.

Mid-South Distributors. et al., v. FTC, 287 Fed. 2d 512 (5 Cir., 1961), 518.

Levy Jack I. , “Doing Business Under the Antitrust Laws,” Antitrust Bulletin, X:3 (May–June 1964), 409.

For the application of this to vendors, see footnotes 1 and 2 of Rowe Frederick M. “Current Developments in Robinson-Patman Law,” Business Lawyer XXI:2 (Jan. 1966), 499–514.

In this section it is assumed that all defenses available to the seller are also available to the buyer per the Automatic Canteen case.

Baum Daniel J. , The Robinson-Patman Act, Summary and Comment (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1964), pp. 35–36. The legality requirement has lately appeared to vanish. See Rowe , “Current Development in Robinson-Patman Law,” op. cit., p. 511.

It was ruled by the courts that Section 2(b) might be used defensively to keep an existing customer but not offensively to obtain a new customer, in Standard Motor Prod., Inc. v. FTC, 265 F.2d 674–276 (2d Cir. 1959). This view was rejected in Sunshine Biscuits, Inc. v. FTC, 306 F.2d 48 (7th Cir. 1962). The Commission has rejected the Circuit Court's view of the law in the Sunshine Biscuit case. See Baum , op. cit., p. 35. Also, see Dilks Russell C. “A Stepchild Gains Small Favor: The FTC and the Meeting Competition Defense Under the Robinson-Patman Act,” Business Lawyer, XXI:2 (Jan. 1966), 488, 489.

Exquisite Form Brassiere, Inc. v. FTC, 301 F. 2d 499 (D.C.Cir. 1961). Skueton, Inc. v. FTC, 305 F. 2d 36 (7 Cir. 1963). See Dilks Russell C. , op. cit., p. 482.

FTC v. Sun Oil Company, 83 Sup. Ct. 358 (1963).

See Austin Cyrus , Price Discrimination and Related Problems under the Robinson-Patman Act (Philadelphia, Pa.: American Law Institute, 1959), pp. 79, 80.

Rowe Frederick M. , Price Discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown and Company, 1962), p. 539.

See Cassady Ralph Jr. Grether E. T. , “The Proper Interpretation of ‘Like Grade and Quality’ within the Meaning of Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act,” Southern California Law Review, XXX:3 (April 1957), 241–279.

Atlanta Trading Co. v. FTC, 258 F.2d 365 (2d Cir. 1958). The Commission apparently has accepted this position. See Baum. op. cit., p. 56.

FTC v. The Borden Company, Trade Reg. Rep. (New Court Decisions) para. 71,716 at 82,191 (1966).

See Rowe Frederick M. , “Current Development in Robinson-Patman Law,” op. cit., p. 401. See also Sears, Roebuck and Co., and Universal-Rundle Corp., Trade Reg. Rep. (FTC Complaints, Orders, Stipulations), para. 16, 644 at 16, 644 (1963).

Grand Union Co. v. FTC, 300 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1962). This ruling was made under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Baum , op. cit., p. 27.

Beatrice Foods Co., Inc., and Eskay Dairy Co., Inc., Trade Reg. Rep. (FTC Complaints, Orders, Stipulations), Sec. 17, 311 at 23,469 (1965).

Furr's Inc., Trade Reg. Rep. (FTC Complaints, Orders, Stipulations), Sec. 17,352 at 22,518 (1965).

American News Co. , 58 FTC 27 (1961). This position was not commented upon in American News Co. and Union News Co. v. FTC, 300 F.2d 104 (1962).

R. H. Macy and Co. Inc. v. FTC 326 Fed. 2d 445 (2d Cir. 1964).

Rowe Frederick M. , “The Federal Trade Commission's Administration of the Anti-Price Discrimination Law—A Paradox of Antitrust Policy,” Columbia Law Review, LXIV:3 (March 1964), 430.

See Weiss E. B. in Advertising Age, Jan. 24, 1966, p. 86.