Document: 360 U.S. 334 79 S.Ct. 1196 3 L.Ed.2d 1280 SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED, Appellant,v.OKLAHOMA RETAIL GROCERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and Louie J. Speed, Inc. No. 252. Argued May 19, 1959. Decided June 22, Mr. Ramsey Clark, Dallas, Tex., for appellant. Samuel M. Lane, New York City, appellees. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This is a suit an injunction, brought in state court Oklahoma by appellee, Retail Grocers Association, against appellant, Safeway Stores, selling several specified items retail grocery merchandise below 'cost' violation Unfair Sales Act. Okla.Stat. tit. 15, §§ 598.1—598.11 (1951). Section 598.3 Act provides: 2 'It hereby declared that any advertising, offer to sell, or sale merchandise, either retailers wholesalers, at less than cost as defined this with intent purpose inducing purchase other unfairly diverting trade from competitor otherwise injuring competitor, impair prevent fair competition, injure public welfare, are unfair competition contrary policy Act, where result such tend deceive purchaser prospective purchaser, substantially lessen unreasonably restrain trade, create monopoly line commerce.' The elements enumerated sections statute. defended on ground, inter alia, its reductions were permitted § 598.7 which allows 'any retailer wholesaler' 4 '* * advertise, sell price made good faith meet who same article products comparable quality him wholesaler retailer.' 5 cross-petition sought enjoin named members appellee including alleging they trial court, some qualification, granted injunction denied relief On appeal, Supreme Court affirmed, 322 P.2d 179, since constitutionality statute was challenged under Fourteenth Amendment, we noted probable jurisdiction, 358 807, 56, 54, case here 28 U.S.C. 1257(2), U.S.C.A. 1257(2). 6 makes two main claims. 7 1. justified cutting prices cities claiming it competitors also cost. reduction only when meeting seller his own found Safeway's violated hat could not avail itself statutory defense but 'either knew had reason know illegal *.' enjoined 8 selling, retail, 'Unfair Act' provisions said Act', except articles them instances exempted sales provided 598.6 Act." 9 phrased terms statute, 'at them' if requisites met. Appellant claims deprives constitutional right compete forbids There no employ relation action outlawed State. Safeway, held, ample means, methods competitors. It embark very kind destructive designed prevent. 10 there situations might reduce without violating hence, would have remedy whatsoever retaliate judicial be available. conclusive answer claim before us adjudication. 'knew know' illegal. then has yet construed abstract circumstances presented carefully interpreting applied particular facts case, pointing out 'until proper factual requires clear determination offers practical situation all conflicting problems considerations area involved apparent, will refrain theorizing.' page 181. If rule wise restraint courts situation, clearly bars adjudication here.1 11 2. Appellant's second contention involves competitors' use trading stamps. Trading stamps, hardly needs stated, are, generally speaking, coupons given dealers purchasers basis dollar value purchased, e.g., one stamp each ten cents' worth goods, collected until he enough redeem various merchandise. stamps checkered career United States, World War II their popularity grown now reasonable estimate these multi-colored scraps paper may almost half America's homes.2 12 When did In City-Midwest City did. These deemed approximately 2.5 percent goods given. contended giving sold near minimum resulted unlawful extent stamp. To specific, item $1, cost, cents net therefore $.975, manner claimed justified, order reducing prices, taking into account request injunction. decided competition. did, however, provide do what appellees issue 'trading cash register receipts, evidence credit issued discount prompt payment *,' long exceed three percent.3 13 contends construction violates Amendment. even though State prohibit 'cost,' barred allowing merchant give unless competing merchants make equivalent reduction. For differentiate between price-cutting is, so argument runs, constitutionally inadmissible discrimination.4 14 idle parade familiar learning review multitudinous cases assurance equal protection laws been applied. generalities subject dispute; application turns peculiarly case.' Goesaert v. Clearly, 335 464, 467, 69 198, 200, 93 L.Ed. 163. 15 that, although cuts prohibited constituted discount, i.e., customers cash. Opposing expert accountants sustained rejected validity diffeenc e. matters sort content ourselves resting clash show decision wanting foundation unjustifiably commended policy. However, note readily apparent differences practices support State's differentiation thereby power asserted 16 'across board,' namely, number varies directly total purchased. price-cutting, selective. difference vital context One chief aims prohibiting put end 'loss-leader' selling. selected loss lure store means competition; plays gullibility leading expect true, amazing bargain full bargains.5 Clearly conclusion selective perpetuate abuse whereas does not. 17 alone require affirmance. reinforced tenable grounds distinction. view entirely different impact consuming market cuts. go offering But cut lose lower prove more potent attraction. unreasonable belief economics highly competitive, low-profit-margin retail-grocery business, well concluded tis choice system none so.6 Such economic aspects problem affords legislative judgment enforced below. 18 Certainly interpose views guesses choice. 19 'The Amendment enjoins 'the laws,' propositions. They relate units A, B, C, expressions arising specific difficulties, addressed attainment ends remedies. Constitution things fact treated law same.' Tinger Texas, 310 141, 147, 60 879, 882, 84 1124. 20 We concerned soundness distinctions drawn. open believe valid people.7 21 Affirmed. 22 CLARK took part consideration case. said: 'In connection our attention called recent (10—4—57) Clark Wolkoff, 250 Minn. 504, 85 N.W.2d 401, 403, wherein held '(I)f sets competitor's price, believes legal violation,' herein. instant obviously admittedly not, faith, set believed sole competitors, thought illegal.' latest chapter history recounted (London) Economist 30, 1959, p. 850: Colorado proposal tax battalions housewives capital. original sponsors changed mind mother threatened campaign re-election alter stand. newest twist story can exchanged, East, theatre seat, even, after July 12th, 'My Fair Lady.' take, accumulated nearly $700 purchases—about costs feed family five months.' fact, during course litigation. contexts upheld, challenge based discriminated Rast Van Deman & Lewis Co., 240 342, 36 370, 679; Tanner Little, 369, 379, 691; Pitney Washington, 387, 385, 703. See Brandeis, was, November 1913, Harper's Weekly, 10. come about dealer using allowed lowered if, being required drop forced raise prices. conceivable mathematical formula developed equalize certainly place complex and, best, uncertain speculative burden States. pre-empted federal antitrust laws.

Category: 7