It is not necessary that the Complaint should state a cause of action in every particular, for if it contains the substance of a cause of action imperfectly stated, the presumption would be that the defects in the Complaint were cured by the proof at the trial. Plaintiff's Complaint passes this test. The second ground on which Defendant bases its Motion to Dismiss is the constitutionality of the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act, Ark. Code-Ann. Although Defendant makes only a cursory inference that the Unfair Practices Act violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Plaintiffs are compelled to respond. The Arkansas Unfair Practices Act has been held constitutional and has withstood all challenges.
Defendant cites no cases to the contrary.
Second, any conflict between the state and federal law, on the facts of this case, is entirely speculative. The California statute does not make all sales below average total cost illegal per se. Those who favor such lawful competition have nothing to fear from the Arkansas Act. Perhaps those who do fear the Act, regardless of their size, fear the Act because they do not understand or do not agree with the free enterprise, lawful competition being promoted thereby. Let Americans be under no illusion as to the value of price cutting.