Document: 368 U.S. 360 82 S.Ct. 431 7 L.Ed.2d 353 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.HENRY BROCH & COMPANY. No. 74. Argued Nov. 16, 1961. Decided Jan. 15, 1962. Sol. Gen. Archibald Cox, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. Frederick M. Rowe, respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion of Court. 1 The Federal Trade Commission seeks reversal action Court Appeals Seventh Circuit in modifying cease-and-desist order which had issued against respondent Broch on finding that violated § 2(c) Clayton Act.1 285 F.2d 764. was sua sponte, and taken proceedings remand followed our Court's earlier setting aside its entirety because Broch's conduct thought not to violate 2(c).2 Comm'n v. Co., 363 166, 80 1158, 4 1124, reversing Cir., 261 725. We granted certiorari, 366 923, 81 1350, 6 383. 2 is a broker selling food products commission some 25 seller principals. One his principals Canada Foods, Ltd., processor apple concentrate. found Broch, make possible Foods' acceptance an offer from J. Smucker Co. buy unusually large quantity concentrate at less than established price, reduced 3%, this sale, agreed 5% rate ordinarily payable by Foods Broch.3 adjudged, prior we agreed, was, circumstances, violation 2(c). 3 Commission's confined restraints repetition precise have committed, nor application limited future sales Smucker.4 Paragraph (1) did prohibit particular but connection with or 'any other principal,' Smucker, 'to any buyer.' (2) also extended prohibitions all buyers, went beyond paragraph 'In manner * directly indirectly' paying, granting allowing, words 2(c), 'anything value as commission, brokerage, compensation, allowance discount lieu thereof *.' excised references principal' buyer,' thus limiting order's Smucker. renews here argument it made judicial modification precluded failed object scope before Commission. disputes he register proper objection see no reason determine fact. will assume, without deciding, properly passed upon order. nevertheless think circumstances case should been affirmed form entered 5 supports that, since based only findings asserted illegal payment respecting single sale ban too sweeping buyers. There merit argument. has wide discretion formulate remedy adequate prevent committed. See Jacob Siegel Comm., 327 608, 611—612, 66 758, 759—760, 90 L.Ed. 888. cannot say exceeded banning repetitions transactions involving buyer, rather simply forbidding recurrence transgression between Comm. Cement Institute, 333 683, 728—729, 68 793, 816—817, 92 1010. Compare United States Gypsum 340 76, 90, 71 160, 170, 95 89. further argues embodied (2). He cross-petition writ certiorari does challenge modified Appeals. Had vice claimed extension Appeals' sponte amendment would reasons already stated clearly erroneous. But contends restricted part so broad jeopardize entire business, unqualifiedly prohibited reductions commissions coupled lower prices—even uniform reductions, are service- cost-justified, purpose meeting competition. In considering necessary observe 1959 amendments 11 Act—which substitute Act provisions enforcement administrative orders those Act, 15 U.S.C.A. 45—do apply instant order.5 consequence, be subjected penalties except yet appropriate Appeals, predicated determination practice Thus not, virtue order, presently acting under risk incurring penalty consideration interpretation, despite fact received petition review. Ruberoid 343 470, 477—480, 72 800, 805—806, 96 1081.6 8 Upon proceeding, ready hand interpretive tools employment previously sanctioned—for use tailoring specific violation, meet legitimate needs case. They free construe designed strictly cope threat violations identical like related committed,7 'no activities if continued aid perpetuating same old unlawful practices.' 727, 816. need not—as clear—read denying benefit statutory defenses exceptions. supra, 475—476, 804—805; National Lead 352 419, 426, 77 502, 507.8 Nor construed prohibiting anything lawful reduction commissions.9 And, repeat, these various aids brought bear yield announced result such violates can still second violation. 9 situation, record, hold attempt redress overbroadness inapt device confining Canada's inappropriate and, indeed, restrict premature. 10 do wish understood, however, holding generalized language necessarily withstand scrutiny amendments.10 severity prescribed become final underlines necessity fashioning are, outset, sufficiently clear avoid raising serious questions their meaning application.11 Labor Relations Board Express Pub. 312 435—437, 61 693, 699—700, 85 930; 726, 815; Morton Salt 334 37, 54, 822, 832. New York, Haven Hartford R. Interstate Commerce 200 361, 404, 26 272, 282, 50 515; Swift States, 196 375, 400—401, 276, 281, 49 518. judgment reversed remanded direction affirm 12 It ordered. 13 BLACK concurs result. 14 WHITTAKER, whom FRANKFURTER HARLAN join, dissenting. On assumption power, modify decree, I affirm. This appeal largely very narrow ground petitioner's 'reduction brokerage obtain *,' 176, 1164, therefore justified accordingly. 16 When attention focused appropriateness restrain illegality, shown responsible awareness difference shaping situation one presented case, wit: specific, closely illegality distinguished widespread inimical public interest. re Colgate-Palmolive Ted Bates Docket 7736, December 29, 1961, CCH Reg.Rep., 15,643, pp. 20,474, 20,485. So, too, Second responsive appreciation distinctive difference. Swanee Paper Corp. 291 833, 837—838. Section amended Robinson-Patman Stat. 1527, U.S.C. 13(c), follows: '(c) Payment compensation. 'It shall person engaged commerce, course pay grant, receive accept, thereof, services rendered purchase goods, wares, merchandise, either party transaction agent, representative, intermediary therein where behalf, subject direct indirect control, compensation paid.' Following filed motion sought, inter alia, allegedly 'unduly scope.' opposing objected original review proceedings, entitled entertain motion. denied embodying denial included provision questioned amending 'On own motion.' evidence following described above, sell behalf price 3% sales. ordered That respondents Henry Oscar Adler, copartners trading representatives, agents, employees, through corporate device, principal, 'commerce' defined amended, forthwith cease desist from: '(1) Paying, indirectly, anyone who control percentage buyer prices reflecting foods currently being effected Ltd. may be, accompanied regular paid principal services; '(2) manner, upon, with, account.' 38 734, 21, July 23, 1959, Pub.L. 86—107, 73 243, 21. herein 10, 1957. procedures enacted it. Sperry Rand 110 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 288 403. Amendments resulted congressional conclusion former were cumbersome assure effective agency orders. said House Committee Report accompanying amendments: 'The present procedures, permits engage practices three times legal applied board vested jurisdiction. First, issue serve initially, must investigate prove Act. No makes board's absence At time, contains procedure secure civil 'Second, court ruling commands obedience again both jurisdiction appeals, section 11, invoked unless first shown. 'Third, court's secured subsequent contempt requires proof new entails third hearing appeals. contrast, contained thereunder much simpler more direct. A pursuant becomes expiration time allowed filing review, within time.' H.R.Rep. 580, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. 4, U.S.Code Cong. Adm.News p. 1805. S.Rep. 83, 2—3. Cf. 51—53, 830—831, 1196; 430—431, 509 510, 438. carrying out (its) function existed past. If attain objectives Congress envisioned, required confine road block lane transgressor traveled; effectively close roads goal, by-passed impunity.' 473, 803. complains omission reference exception 'for goods read applies. U.S., 173, 177, n. 19, S.Ct., 1162, 1164. when viewed context reducing competitively gain buyer's account, competitive otherwise afforded defense charge 'Had accept buyers there plainly room Neither legislative history purposes require absurd result, neither courts ever suggested it.' notes 5, 6, supra. 'Any subsection (b) after final, while effect, forfeit $5,000 each *. Each separate offense, continuing failure neglect obey day continuance deemed offense.'

Category: 7