Court Opinion

ID: 9856992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 07:10:10.462904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:48.078968
License: Public Domain

JACKSON, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Sales at retail below cost, as defined in the Act, are prohibited. 15 O.S.1951 § 598.3.
Speed is selling, or giving, two articles for the price of one. Speed does not admit that this constitutes selling below cost nor does the majority opinion specifically so hold. Speed argues, and the majority agrees, that Speed is giving a discount for cash.
The Act does not authorize discounts for cash in retail sales. It does not authorize any scheme or device that would result in sales below “cost to the retailer.” We are not dealing herein with sales at wholesale or by the manufacturer wherein discounts for cash appear to be authorized by § 598.2(a) of the Act.
Insofar as material here § 598.2(a) defines “cost to the retailer” in substance as invoice cost, plus freight, plus a 6 percent *187markup to cover a part of the cost of doing business.
Speed was selling items at “cost to the retailer” (Speed) hut in addition was giving trading stamps to the purchaser. The stamps were valued at 2.5 percent. That is, if a pound of coffee cost Speed $1, as •defined in “cost to the retailer”, Speed was selling the coffee at $1 and giving the customer a stamp.
Even if it could be said that a cash discount by the retailer is authorized, the foregoing practice does not constitute a •discount for cash in the ordinary acceptance or understanding of the term. A “discount for cash” ordinarily connotes a taking away, or reduction. The word “dis•count” is defined in Webster’s New International Dictionary as fellows:
“Discount. 1. To deduct from an account, debt, charge, or the like; to make an abatement of; as, to discount a per cent of a bill for early payment.”
In Black’s Law Dictionary “Discount” is defined as follows:
“Discount. In a general sense, an allowance or deduction made from a gross sum on any account whatever.”
In Black’s Law Dictionary “Cash Discount” is defined as follows:
“A deduction from billed price which seller allows for payment within a certain time. Leonard v. United States, Ct.Cl., 7 F.Supp. 295, 297.”
Speed is not giving a discount for cash hut is selling two articles for the price of one. Under the illustration above given Speed is selling a pound of coffee and a stamp for $1 which, together, cost One Dollar and Two and One-Half cents. This is contrary to an express provision of the statute. § 598.2(d) provides in substance that when one or more items are advertised or sold with one or more other items at a combined price, or offered as a gift, or given with the sale of any one or more other items, each of said items shall be deemed to be advertised or sold, and the price of each item named shall be governed by the definition of “cost to the retailer.”
We have been furnished extensive briefs citing decisions from other jurisdictions. Most of these decisions seem to be influenced by experts in the field of accounting and auditing. Experts in these fields testified in this case. Reasons which compel an accountant’s conclusion do not compel the same legal conclusion. The issues are not the same. Accountants are concerned with auditing principles. We are concerned with the meaning of the Act as intended by the Legislature.
In my opinion the injunction against Safeway was proper. Safeway does not contend that it has a right to sell below cost. It does contend that it had a right to meet Speed’s prices. § 598.7 of the Act authorizes a retailer to sell merchandise at a price made in good faith to meet the price of a competitor who is selling the same article at cost to him (competitor). Safeway was taking 2.5 percent from cost. Speed was adding or giving 2.5 percent above cost. But if it could be admitted that Safeway was meeting competition it was meeting unlawful competition. An illegal price on Speed’s part would not authorize an illegal price on Safeway’s part. This is one of the evils that the Act seeks to prevent.
For the reasons assigned, I respectfully concur in the order enjoining Safeway from selling below statutory cost and dissent to the opinion wherein it authorizes Speed to give stamps on articles sold at statutory cost.
I am authorized to say that HALLEY and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur in the views herein expressed.