Opinion ID: 366541
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the different factual situations

Text: 7 At issue in Gypsum was whether an exchange of price information for purposes of compliance with the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13, was exempt from Sherman Act scrutiny. The defendants claimed that the purposes of these price exchanges were to permit them to take advantage of the meeting competition defense of Section 2(b) of the Robinson-Patman Act and to prevent customer fraud. The government alleged that this system of interseller price verification had the effect of stabilizing the price of gypsum board in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Court concluded that interseller price verification could not be used to establish a good faith defense under Section 2(b) by sellers with lying buyers. 8 Thus Gypsum was not a situation where the parties agreed that a certain price would be charged; at most the parties sought information on what price had been or was being charged with no agreement or request for information on the price a competitor would charge in the future. In contrast, we have parties in the instant case who met three or four times a year to discuss the coal prices that would appear on the circulars . . . and to reach a tentative agreement concerning the prices to be charged by the companies. . . .  Memorandum, Findings of Fact and Verdict, p. 2. 9