Title: Young Oil Co. v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc.
Citation: 757 So. 2d 380
Docket Number: 1980144
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: December 17, 1999

757 So. 2d 380 (1999)
YOUNG OIL COMPANY et al.
v.
RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC.
1980144.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 17, 1999.
Rhon E. Jones of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis &amp; Miles, P.C., Montomery; and Ezra B. Jones III and W. Dennis Summers of Roberts, Isaf &amp; Summers, Atlanta, Georgia, for appellants.
William D. Coleman and Christopher W. Weller of Capell &amp; Howard, P.C., Montgomery; and J. Robert Faulk of McDowell, *381 Faulk &amp; McDowell, Prattville, for appellee.
COOK, Justice.
We granted the petition of the plaintiffs Young Oil Company and others (collectively "Young Oil"), pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P., for permission to appeal a partial summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. We affirm.
The facts and the dispositive issue involved in this dispute were thoroughly discussed by the trial court in its order now being challenged by the appellants. Because we agree with the trial court's disposition and with its rationale in all material respects, we quote here all material portions of that order:
"... The Legislature is perfectly capable of implementing ... policy. If, in this case, the Legislature had intended for the AMFMA to encompass the `Rising Wholesale Price Scenario' and the `First Down/First Up Rule,' then it [c]ould have so provided. It did not so do, and this court cannot by judicial fiat amend the Act.
"Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and, in turn, grants Defendant Racetrac's motion for partial summary judgment ... and declares as follows:
"1 Statutory cost is comprised of the wholesale cost of the fuel, taxes, freight and general overhead.
"2 Section 8-22-16 provides, in part, as follows:
(Some footnotes omitted.)
We agree with the trial court's order as quoted, and we adopt it as part of the opinion of this Court. Under that approach, of course, Young Oil must rely on "self help," namely, its own decision to raise its price above the floor set by Racetrac in order to move Racetrac's price upward (hereinafter "the self-help" approach). To the trial court's comments, we add some of our own.
First, the issue presented in this case does not fall within the plain language of the statute. In other words, to adopt Young Oil's proposed First Down/First Up Rule would require us to extend the language of the statute beyond its plain meaning.
Second, we recognize that the self-help approach is not entirely free of difficulty. Neither, however, is the approach urged by Young Oil. Indeed, the First Down/ First Up Rule would involve impracticabilities in addition to those expressly noted by the trial court. One question that would certainly arise, for example, is which retail competitor, B or C, in the trial court's example, would be required by the First Down/First Up Rule to raise its price first, after Retailer A, the price leader, raises its price above cost? Assume, in other words, the following scenario: Retailer A posts its price at $.96 per gallon, when the statutory cost is 94¢ per gallon. The next day, Retailer B and Retailer C reduce their prices to their below-cost price of 96¢ per gallon to "meet" A's price. Next week, because of an increase in the wholesale price, Retailer A's statutory cost rises to $.98 per gallon. The following day, Retailer A raises its price to $.99 per gallon. However, that increase leaves the prices charged by Retailer B and Retailer C still at $.96 per gallon.
Young Oil concedes that such a situation would "eliminate[] the defensive posture of competitors B and C." Appellants' Reply Brief, at 21. Moreover, as we understand Young Oil's argument, both Retailer B and Retailer C could use the "meeting-competition" defense vis-a-vis each other. But neither Retailer B nor Retailer C wants to be the first to raise its price; hence, this litigation. Logically, the First Down/First Up Rule would require both *388 Retailer B and Retailer C to determine which competitor had been the first to arrive at the 96per-gallon rate. With little imagination, it can be seen that this scenario, and, no doubt, others of which we are as yet unaware, would involve an inordinate amount of record keeping.
Finally, the self-help approach is not inconsistent with our caselaw construing the AMFMA, and § 8-22-8(b) in particular. It is not, for example, inconsistent with McGuire Oil Co. v. Mapco, Inc., 612 So. 2d 417 (Ala.1992). That case involved the following question, certified to this Court from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: "Can a defendant under the AMFMA invoke the `meeting competition' defense contained in [§ 8-22-8(b)] when the defendant prices motor fuel one or two cents below the price set by its competitors?" 612 So. 2d  at 423. More specifically, the defendant in that case argued that the "`meeting-competition' defense" allowed it to reduce its price, and then, when a competitor lowered its prices to that level, further "lower its price below the [competitor's] price." Id. (emphasis added). This Court rejected that contention, noting that "meeting competition," according to the defendant, actually meant "beating competition." Id. We stated that the statute "is clear and unambiguous," and that it "cannot be read so as to allow one defendant-competitor to undercut another plaintiff-competitor's prices and then contend that by doing so it is meeting competition." Id. We explained that § 8-22-8(b) "should not be used offensively to ensure that a defendant's price of gasoline will always be below its competition." Id. (emphasis added).
That is not the argument made by Racetrac in this case. Racetrac argues only that it should not always be the first retailer to raise its price from a level it shares with competitors. For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HOOPER, C.J., and HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
MADDOX, J., concurs in the result.