Document: 355 U.S. 396 78 S.Ct. 369 2 L.Ed.2d 359 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.STANDARD OIL CO. No. 24. Argued Nov. 14, 18, 1957. Decided Jan. 27, 1958. Mr. Earl E. Pollock, Washington, D.C., for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of court. Hammond Chaffetz, respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion Court. 1 This case is a sequel to Standard Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 1951, 340 231, 71 240, 95 L.Ed. 239, wherein Court held that § 2(b) Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, as amended Robinson-Patman 49 1526, 15 U.S.C. 13(b), U.S.C.A. afforded seller complete defense charge price discrimination if its lower was 'made in good faith meet lawful and equally low competitor.' at page 246, 248. We remanded with instructions Commission make findings on Standard's contention discriminatory prices were so made. The subsequent are not altogether clear. Commission, acting same record, seemingly does contest fact deductions made competitors. However, have acted faith, precluded, because Commission's determination reduced pursuant system rather than being 'the result departures from nondiscriminatory scale.' F.T.C. 923, 954. Appeals found no basis record such finding vacated order holding "good faith' firmly established.' 233 F.2d 649, 655. In view our former importance bringing an end this protracted litigation, we granted certiorari. 1956, 352 950, 77 325, 242. Having concluded turns factual issue, decided upon fair assessment affirm decision below. long history 17-year-old may be both original Appeals, 7 Cir., 173 210, Court, supra. arose companion similar complaints filed against Gulf Company, Texas Shell Company. petition certiorari, stresses existence industry-wide 'dual system,' asserting below would 'insulate attack pattern deeply entrenched industry—not only Detroit area, but also elsewhere country.' pendency Gulf, Texas, mentioned twice, states footnote '(p)roceedings thereon been deferred until disposition case.' April 3, 1957, 'it will now practicable try issues raised' 'irrespective final outcome * matter Company,' dismissed all three cases. claim asserted dual pricing scope vital position here, alleged complaint, included among findings;1 therefore, limit consideration alone. 3 urges us examine 8-volume over 5,500 pages determine four 'jobbers'2 erroneous, Appeals.3 contends precluded reductions If wrong this, it maintains 'good element out showing competitors employ system,4 any event negatived failure bona fide effort review passage Act.5 4 On present posture believe further evidence unwarranted. As stated American Tobacco Co., 1927, 274 543, 544, 47 663, 1193, although '(t)he statement certiorari judgment might seriously hinder future administration law grave sufficiently probable justify issuance writ,' appears '(p)roper controversy depends question fact,' therefore 'we adhere usual rule noninterference where conclusions Circuit Courts depend appreciation circumstances which admit different interpretations.' Moreover, Universal Camera Corp. National Labor Relations Board, 474, 491, 456, 466, substantiality whole support agency 'is Congress has placed keeping Appeals. intervene what ought rare instance when standard misapprehended or grossly misapplied.' do more issue insubstantiality decide 'fair assessment' record.6 That conclusion strengthened accords trial examiner, two dissenting members another panel first before court 1949, them agreed offers 5 Both parties acknowledge preclude faith.' A. Staley Mfg. 1945, 324 746, 65 971, 89 1338; Cement Institute, 1948, 333 683, 68 793, 92 1009; Lead 419, 502, 438. sole then one fact: 'jobber' buyers Citrin-Kolb, Stikeman, Wayne, Ned's—made individual competitive situations? examined relies most heavily competitors' shown Wayne prior time initially tank-car price.7 All these 'jobbers,' however, Act 1936, examiner excluded proof pre-1936 ground irrelevancy. approved ruling, remand failed reopen take proof. case, said, 'There doubt under amendment (such) material and, accepted, established unlawful discrimination.' 239—240, 245. should admitted; absence can hardly relied reversal. event, sufficient case. 6 It crucial inquiry why continued 1936. show major local suppliers numerous attempts 1936—1941 period lure 'jobbers' away cut-rate prices, oftentimes much one-and-one-half-cent reduction giving them.8 uncontradicted, pointed dissents, lost seven meeting pirating 1933 1934. occurred context gasoline war created extreme overabundance supply—a setting unlikely lend itself general policies. stated: 'It well (Standard) convinced ceased granting Stikeman refuse Ned's Auto Supply Company lose accounts. had substantial reasons believing concerns, except already recognized entitled commonly accepted standards industry, achieved volume distribution brought within range likely oil company time.' F.T.C., 952—953. 8 Ned's, receive post Robinson-Patman, highly significant. After prolonged haggling, during pressured information attractive other suppliers, responded ultimatum 1936 half-cent-pergallon tank-wagon price. concedes did criteria normally insisted reduction. Two years later, after still haggling9 ultimatum, gave second cent. 9 determining response situations system, considered factors just mentioned, weigh position. own thus afford ample witness use here could obtained spur threats switch competitors, deterrent far short Staley, Cement, Lead, supra, sanction Act. 10 Affirmed. 11 DOUGLAS, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK BRENNAN concur, dissenting. 12 today cripples enforcement 13, important area. Section makes person engaged commerce 'to discriminate between purchasers commodities like grade quality' purchases commerce. provides burden rebutting prima-facie case' shall charged discrimination, provided, 'That nothing (herein) contained prevent his furnishing services facilities purchaser competitor, furnished (Italics added.) 13 First. admitted some retailers refused those retailers. Before classified 'jobbers.' definition took into account sales 'jobber,' bulk storage facilities, delivery equipment, credit rating. tests met, 'retailer' became even though he sell retail. test who cost making sales. So 'jobber" arbitrary, respects costs function. comes down this: big retailer gets price; small And occurs ipse dixit Standard, serving less nor retailer, question, performs function retailer. 14 construction given flies face policy expressed provisions quoted words explanation used Representative Patman himself: 'What objectives bill? Chairman, there grown up country business few rich, powerful organizations reason their size ability coerce intimidate manufacturers forced give goods they independent merchants circumstance quantities goods. right wrong? wrong. attempting stop it, recognizing manufacturer quantity difference manufacture.' 80 Cong.Rec. 8111. 16 Second. argued, favor ones justified competition. 17 To repeat, others labeling favored seems impossible statutory reliance plainly deceptive contrivance that. 18 proving 'system' meaning term discriminations involved proceeding respondent's method pricing.' amply supports finding.1 19 seller's otherwise falls protection 2(b). But where, establishes acquire simply holds customer offer. words, meets competition good-faith effectiveness demonstrate initiator. 20 Third. mere competitor offered mean lawfully it. faith,' cannot using system. 'This startling admissible assumption statute permits maintain merely adopted entirety, means securing benefits maintained competitors.' 753, 975. See 725, 815. 21 said 250, 'Congress meant permit natural consequences follow action met. Were govern jungle. point reached seen Congressman Utterback, managers bill conference. What dispose case: 22 procedural provision construed carte blanche exemption violate violated first, met without oppressive violation obvious intent bill. 23 'To illustrate: House committee hearings showed cents box Colgate-Palmolive-Peet soap & P. chain. Upon complaint hearing proviso Colgate rebuttal evidence, fact, Des Moines, Iowa, P.'s retail outlets city; exonerate everywhere, 24 'But discount Procter Gamble competing offer absolute bar liability nullify act entirely very inception enforcement, nearly every mass sellers product. One permitted another. self-defense, while claimed competency whether legal illegal attack. A practical effect commercial bribe futile achieve intended purposes.' 9418. When let classify grant arbitrary requirements employs system,2 ineffective. read hospitable way allow schedule 25 (a) function, 26 (b) matching predatory competitor's 'pirating' offers, Court's word, own. 27 I reverse direct order. admits stating brief largest Socony-Vacuum Sun sold higher reveal customers offering uniform price: example, per gallon off price, contrasted particular tag significance light affirmance Appeals' complained accurate description economic performed purchasers, consistent desire placate '* (W)e unable discern petitioner's 'were affirmatively demonstrates contrary. Petitioner invariably times retain customer.' 654. (Emphasis weight, negates underlying argument matched There serious unlawful. Indeed, stated, '(I)n instant situation finding, suspicion petitioner lawful.' 'did actually adjudicate legality allegedly *.' manner casual aside, belatedly suggests since latter thought raise foundation logic destroyed Our eliminates necessity considering last point. Nor need consider law. An examination court's statement, 651, indicates reference broader Board Pittsburgh S.S. 498, 502—503, 453, 455—456, 479; see Ins. 1952, 343 395, 409—410, 72 824, 832—833, 96 1027. Those cases distinguished statutes involved. Compare 10(e), 61 147, 29 160(e), 5(c) (d), 52 112—113, 45(c)(d), 45(c, d). Camera, indicated apply instances decisions. 488—490, 464—465. claims 1940 answer Standard. portion referred to, concerned establishing alternative defense, namely, justification functional classification. Such argued method, places great standing involving raids, however; continuation once warranted recurring again cutthroat market. indicate haggling extended each consumed process tends negate idea participants deciding well-defined criteria—annual million gallons, capable taking delivery, responsible conclusory allegations ignored. Paragraph alleged: 'Respondent alleges practice fidely selecting classifying wholesale jobber customers, resellers, follows: adequate own; equipped deliveries tank car truck train storage; facilities; continuing dealer maintaining operating business; satisfactory rating; personnel requisite equipment adequately operate business, service perform functions wholesaler jobber, assume hazard expense fully business. named Three Complaint fully, fairly, reasonably set forth above fair, reasonable, proper classification storage, trucks, salesmen personnel; buys lots manager Division, asked characteristics must replied: 'He equipment; himself care gasoline; amounting about 1,000,000 2,000,000 gallons year; responsibility satisfactory; business.' Also, exception period, always received 'In prospective gasoline, criterion now, many been, annual accept quantities, assuring payment large purchases. applied distributive purchaser, is, selling public dealers, wholly immaterial.' 953.

Category: 7