Document: 348 U.S. 115 75 S.Ct. 148 99 L.Ed. 145 L. MOORE, Petitioner,v.MEAD'S FINE BREAD COMPANY, a Corporation. No. 121. Argued Nov. 17, 1954. Decided Dec. 6, Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1955. See 932, 334. Messrs. Lynell G. Skarda, Dee C. Blythe, Clovis, N.M., for petitioner. Mr. Edward W. Napier, Lubbock, Tex., respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This is suit treble damages, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U.S.C. § 15, U.S.C.A. brought violations 2(a) Clayton Act, as amended by Robinson-Patman 49 1526, 13(a), and 3 13a, 13a. The jury found petitioner; Court Appeals reversed, 10 Cir., 208 F.2d 777; we granted certiorari, 347 1012, 74 877, because importance question law presented.1 2 Petitioner was engaged in bakery business at Santa Rosa, New Mexico, none his activities being interstate character. Respondent corporation baking Mexico. It one several corporations having interlocking ownership management, all Mead family associates. These maintain plants Lubbock Big Spring, Texas, Hobbs, Roswell, They market their bread under name 'Mead's Fine Bread' promote product through common advertising program. purchase flour wrappers unit. sells Farwell, town which it serves with truck operating out For some months, petitioner respondent were competition Rosa. There evidence that, on threat to move another town, local Rosa merchants agreed petitioner's products exclusively. Respondent, labeling that action boycott, cut wholesale price from 14 cents 7 pound loaf 21 11 pound-and-a-half loaf. companies did not prices any other town; its Texas. 4 war continued September 1948 April 1949, result forced close business. 5 reversed judgment ground injury resulting cutting purely competitor whose no way related commerce. 'If lessened or monopoly created,' said Appeals, 'it scope effect affected commerce.' 777, 780. 6 Section amended, provides part: 'It shall be unlawful person commerce, course such either directly indirectly, discriminate between different purchasers commodities like grade quality, where purchases involved discrimination are sold use, consumption, resale within United States * may substantially lessen tend create line injure, destroy, prevent who grants knowingly receives benefit discrimination, customers them *.' 8 9 sell goods part lower than those exacted elsewhere purpose destroying competition, eliminating States; or, unreasonably low competitor.' Those sections face seem cover instant case. selling both locally interstate. In business, made discriminations, maintaining transactions intrastate sales. destruction plainly established, required Act; support finding eliminate competitor, ample.2 read antitrust laws reaching only where: (1) restraint has an free flow trade e.g., Wickard v. Filburn, 317 111, 63 82, 87 122; (2) effected utilization mechanisms, Lorain Journal Co. States, 342 143, 72 181, 96 162; (3) fixed use commercial transactions, Frankfort Distilleries, 324 293, 65 661, 89 951; (4) discriminatory sales compete Corn Products Refining Federal Trade Commission, 726, 961, 1320; (5) commerce used destroy injured impaired acts. 12 We think practices present case also included laws. have here industry increasing domain outlawed competitive practices. victim, sure, merchant; him. But beneficiary business; treasury finance warfare drawn interstate, well local, sources include but group interlocked same sales, companies, kept high while lowered. If this method approved, pattern growth would simple. As long strictly intrastate, could grow expand impunity expense merchants. advantage then combines, reason skills efficiency strength ability wage wars. profits underwrite losses price-cutting campaigns. No instrumentality merchant combine. opportunities afforded employed injure trade. Congress, guardian Commerce Clause, certainly power say advantages attach privilege doing 13 type held 'foreign legitimate competition' even prior Act. Porto Rican American Tobacco Rico Co., 30 234, 237. seems plain us Congress went least far shown, facts charged upon words statute. And history Act shows designed reach now claimed Congressman Utterback, manager bill House, he outlawed: 'Where, however, manufacturer State beyond State, favor disadvantage other; trade, nor regulate limit employment protect itself influences State.' 80 Cong.Rec. 9417. is, think, clear barred outlawing 16 Other points pressed Appeals. examined substantial. therefore reverse affirm District 17 So ordered. 18 Judgment reversed; affirmed. first reached appeal dismissal plaintiff's affirmed, holding precluded own illegal acts initiated alleged discrimination. 184 338. petition vacated judgment, remanded further consideration light Kiefer-Stewart Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 340 211, 71 259, 95 219. Moore Service 944, 528, 681. On reconsideration, receded former position, dismissing complaint, trial. 190 540. contends so-called boycott justified cutting. 214, 261, 219, said, others guilty infractions laws, they responsible appropriate proceedings against Government private persons. conduct petitioner, legalize combination respondents immunize liability injured.' need pursue matter, obtained charge phase cannot complain. liable if 'for regaining re-establishing

Category: 7