Opinion ID: 200573
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Goods of Same Grade and Quality

Text: 25 Finally, § 264 requires that DJM allege that Tex-Shield was quoting different prices for goods of the same grade or quality. Defendants argue that the goods for which DJM requested a price — pre-cut fabric kits — were not the same grade or quality as the goods on which Creative Apparel requested a price — uncut cloth on the roll. Although this argument may ultimately have merit, it does not preclude inferences from the complaint sufficient to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 26 It is possible to infer from the complaint that the goods at issue were of the same grade and quality. According to the complaint, a DPSC report indicates that Defendant Tex-shield had, in fact, offered the Blucher Chemical Protective Cloth to Creative at a significantly lower price than it had offered the cloth to DJM. Given that the final product, the chemical protective clothing, had to be produced according to military specifications that included use of the Cloth, it is a reasonable inference — without considering any contrary proof — that the goods at issue (the Cloth) had to be of the same grade and quality. 6 Cf. Arruda v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 310 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir.2002) (indicating that in evaluating propriety of 12(b)(6) motion, the court must assume the truth of all well-pleaded facts and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom that fit the plaintiff's stated theory of liability).