Court Opinion

ID: 9427334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:20:25.999132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:06.419866
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Powell,
concurring in part.
I join the judgment and Parts I, II, and V of the Court’s opinion.1 I also join so much of Part III as holds that a *470seller's intention to establish a meeting-competition defense under §.2 (b) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, to a charge of price discrimination under § 2 (a) is not in itself a “controlling circumstance” excusing liability under § 1 of the Sherman Act for otherwise unlawful direct price-verification practices.
I do not join those portions of Part III, however, that might be read as suggesting that there are cases where the § 2 (b) defense is unavailable even though a seller made every reasonable, lawful effort to corroborate his buyer's report that a competitor had offered a lower price before reducing his own price to that buyer. See, e. g., ante, at 455-456, 459 n. 32.2 In my view, a proper accommodation between the policies of the Robinson-Patman Act and the Sherman Act would result in recognition of the § 2 (b) defense in such cases. Otherwise, sellers sometimes would face the unenviable choice of reducing prices to one buyer and risking Robinson-Patman Act liability, refusing to do so and losing the sale, or reducing prices to all buyers.
• A prudent businessman faced with this choice often would forgo the price reduction altogether. This reaction would disserve the procompetitive policy of the Sherman Act without advancing materially the antidiscrimination policy of the Robinson-Patman Act. The Court already has made clear that the Robinson-Patman Act “does not require the seller to justify price discriminations by showing that in fact they met a competitive price.” FTC v. A. E. Staley Mfg. Co., 324 U. S. 746, 759 (1945). Today the Court confirms, that “it is the concept of good faith which lies at the core of the meeting-competition defense, and good faith 'is a flexible and pragmatic, not technical or doctrinaire, concept.’ ” Ante, at 454, quoting Continental Baking Co., 63 F. T. C. 2071, 2163 (1963). A seller who has attempted to verify his buyer’s *471report by every reasonable, lawful means before reducing his price to meet a competitor’s price, in my view, has met the test of “good faith.” In such a case, if the buyer’s report proves to have been untruthful, it is the buyer alone, not the seller, who has acted in bad faith.

 Because the issue discussed in Part IY of the Court’s opinion is unlikely to arise at any retrial, I find it unnecessary to express a view as to it.

 I do not understand the Court to taire a firm position on this issue. See ante, at 456 n. 31.