Opinion ID: 375781
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consummated Transaction Issue

Text: 4 On the above facts, Harper contends that, because Amoco required no other purchaser of its carpet backing to disclose a customer list to secure delivery, Amoco discriminatorily denied Harper the service or facility of an unconditional delivery in violation of § 2(e). 5 The district court found, however, that Harper was not a purchaser within the meaning of § 2(e) and that no consummated transaction had taken place; on these grounds it entered judgment for Amoco. 5 In reaching its conclusion, the court first noted that § 2(e) does not prohibit a seller from choosing its customers and from refusing to deal with prospective purchasers to whom, for whatever reason, it does not wish to sell. We agree with this 6 and with the corollary noted by the court that one must be a purchaser to claim the protection of § 2(e). 7 The district court found, however, that Harper was not a purchaser within the meaning of the Act, apparently because, in its view, no consummated transaction had taken place. 8 6 We believe a consummated transaction in the sense of a fully executed contract is not required by § 2(e). A complaining party may become a purchaser within the meaning of § 2(e) solely by entering into a contract for the purchase of goods for resale. 9 Execution of the contract is unnecessary. 7 Factual disputes as to the existence and terms of an executory contract appear from the record. 10 Accordingly, the summary judgment cannot be sustained on the ground that no contract for the purchase of the carpet backing had been made.