Document: 395 U.S. 642 89 S.Ct. 1871 23 L.Ed.2d 599 Clyde A. PERKINS, Petitioner,v.STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA. No. 624. Argued April 22, 23, 1969. Decided June 16, Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, See 90 36. Earl W. Kintner and George R. Kucik, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Richard J. MacLaury, San Francisco, Cal., respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In 1959 petitioner, Perkins, brought this civil antitrust action against Standard Oil Company California seeking treble damages under § 2 Clayton Act, as amended by Robinson-Patman Act,1 injuries alleged to have resulted from Standard's price discriminations in sale gasoline oil during a period over two years 1955 1957. 1963, after lengthy complicated trial, jury returned verdict Perkins assessed $333,404.57, which, trebling court addition attorney's fees, total judgment $1,298,213.71. On review, Court Appeals Ninth Circuit held that assessment included were not recoverable Act therefore ordered new trial. Co. v. 9 Cir., 396 F.2d 809. We granted certiorari determine whether Appeals, reversing judgment, had correctly construed Act. Petitioner entered business 1928 operator single service station State Washington. By mid-1950's he has become one largest independent distributors both Washington Oregon. He was wholesaler, operating storage plants trucking equipment, retailer through his own stations. From 1945 until 1957, purchased substantially all requirements Standard. 1957 charged higher its than Branded Dealers,2 who competed with Signal & Gas Co., wholesaler whose gas eventually reached u mps major competitor Perkins. contends price-related him seriously harmed competitive position forced him, sacrifice what remained once companies business, Union Oil. 3 Many elements liability on part are dispute. admitted it sold Dealers at discriminatorily lower prices those which The found harm done favorable treatment pute. Of aspect damages, said: 4 'The they turn retail. With respect them, Perkins' story is quickly told. Because favoritism discrimination able did offer better services facilities marketing retail.' F.2d, 812. 5 regard damage resulting favor Oil, however, took different view because following circumstances discriminary sales made. admittedly Western Hyway, Regal Stations competitor. passed Signal's subsidiary then Western's subsidiary, Regal. Regal's stations thus undersell and, according harm, along suffered hands favored Dealers, destroyed ability compete sell left business. held, any impaired competition beyond scope too far removed chain distribution. A substantial Standard, viewed it, might been based upon finding advantage That court, concluding 'the whole tainted, since amount reflected conduct cannot be ascertained; * *' reversed 813. 6 disagree Appeals' conclusion does apply result Signal, Western, pertinent part, provides: 7 '(a) It shall unlawful person engaged commerce, either directly or indirectly, discriminate between purchasers commodities like grade quality, where effect such may lessen tend create monopoly line injure, destroy, prevent grants knowingly receives benefit discrimination, customers them *'. 8 read language limiting distributing levels supplier's will recognized potentially injurious competition. According coverage restricted caused an impairment (1) seller ('any discrimination'), (2) purchaser (3) discriminating ('customers them'). Here, customer (Regal) (Western Hyway) (Signal). termed these 'fourth level' protected conclude limitation wholly artificial completely unwarranted purpose FTC Fred Meyer, Inc., 390 341, 88 904, 19 1222 (1968), we buys could considered 'customer' original supplier within meaning 2(d) section dealing promotional allowances closely analogous 2(a) involved case. stated narrowly would untenable when light purposes Similarly, more Meyer allow discriminators avoid sanctions simple expedient adding additional link distribution chain. example, standard supplied Signal. allegedly furnished vital supply crude petroleum, insist price. Had stations, giving advantage, there no question, even decision case, clear violation committed. Instead selling Regal, transferred first owned 60% stock Hyway; 55% find basis immunizing simply product question formal exchange before reaching level actual point view, certainly less presence particular producer retailer. Here discriminated evidence competitively retail These facts sufficient give rise 10 Before injured party can recover must, course, show causal connection injury suffered. This true regardless 'level' occurs. below that, matter law, 'Section recognize connection, essential liability, trade practices distributive ladder Standard.' 816. As noted above, do accept limitation. If record support inference causation, ultimate proves jury. Continental Ore n ion Carbide, 370 690, 700—701, 82 1404, 1411, 777 (1962). trial judge properly burden showing proximately infer causation. There received on, least thereby undercut gasoline. Furthermore, repeatedly complained officials discriminatory given being down aware danger practices. sustain jury's award 11 One other minor group improper ruling also erroneous. submitted some tending individual financial losses failing corporations (Perkins Oregon) unable pay agreed brokerage fees securing gasoline, rental leases indebtedness. order guidance proposed opinion, violations should second For proposition cited Karseal Corp. Richfield Corp., 221 358, 363, rule only incidentally laws,—the bystander hit but aimed at,—cannot violater.' mere innocent bystander; principal victim practiced Since clearly entitled bring suit, present Moreover, obvious decided, reversible error case items judgment. impossible say covered judge's charge While treated many specifically, charge—either specific general—upon felt free include award. reason, ground. 12 Respondent argued brief several rulings error. Most arguments rejected Appeals. examined others without merit. see need prolong litigation began nearly ago. reinstated. so ordered. 13 Verdict 14 HARLAN consideration 15 MARSHALL, whom STEWART joins, concurring dissenting part. 16 I agree affirmed. But broad, somewhat vague, ground chosen must 17 poses very narrow question. f Through majority-owned subsidiaries, marketed petitioner's outlets. seems quite likely pricing decisions Even if company willing protracted war knew 'grandfather' corporation making extra, partially off-setting, profits. interpreting laws '(w)e look economic reality relevant transactions,' United States Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., 393 199, 208, 361, 367, 21 344 treat beneficiary price, competing Respondent's 'knowingly receive(d) discrimination,' 2(a), 38 Stat. 730, 49 1526, U.S.C. 13(a), go determination 'causation' damages. Accordingly, reason intimate, indirection, firms intervened explicitly limit holding us. 18 undertake difficult task sorting out issues reversal solely injury' problem. Other assumption back long idea taken about respondent's allegations prop removed. law convoluted enough numerous explicit implicit holdings come bedevil us future years. leave problems unresolved anew context Court's issue general importance presented petition certiorari. Section amended, provides follows: course purchases use, consumption, resale Territory thereof District Columbia insular possession place jurisdiction States, *.' operators Chevron brand names. During claim wholesaler.

Category: 7