Opinion ID: 104123
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discounts to Purchasers of By-Products.

Text: Still other price discriminations by petitioners charged and found by the Commission were discounts allowed to certain favored purchasers of gluten feed and meal, by-products of petitioners' refining of corn, and other discounts allowed to certain favored purchasers of starch and starch products. It was not and is not contended that these allowances were due to differences in the cost of manufacture, sale or delivery. But it is asserted that these discriminations did not violate § 2 (a), since there was not the requisite effect on competition. It was stipulated, and the Commission found, that the allowances in question were sufficient, if and when reflected in whole or in substantial part in resale prices, to attract business to the favored purchasers away from their competitors, or to force [their] competitors to resell . . . at a substantially reduced profit, or to refrain from reselling. But it is asserted that there is no evidence that the allowances ever were reflected in the purchasers' resale prices. This argument loses sight of the statutory command. As we have said, the statute does not require that the discriminations must in fact have harmed competition, but only that there is a reasonable possibility that they may have such an effect. We think that it was permissible for the Commission to infer that these discriminatory allowances were a substantial threat to competition.