Court Opinion

ID: 9651300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:12:56.855623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:31.694698
License: Public Domain

MINTON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
If I, a small buyer of salt, have to pay more for my salt than a larger buyer does because he is a large buyer, it seems clear to me that I have been discriminated against as to price. It must have seemed that way to Congress, because under the Clayton Act quantity discounts were expressly excluded from discrimination. The Robinson-Pat-man amendment to the Clayton Act eliminated the exclusion of quantity discounts, unless related to the cost of production, sale, and delivery. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 6 Cir., 101 F.2d 620-624. 1 therefore think that quantity discounts are discriminatory per se and can be justified only when properly related to the cost of production, sale, and delivery.
Discrimination must be such that its effect “may be” substantially to lessen competition. It does not have to be shown, and therefore found by the Commission, that such discrimination actually lessened competition, etc. It is sufficient if it is found that there is a reasonable possibility that the discriminatory acts “may” have such an effect. Corn Products Refining Co. et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, 324 U.S. 726, 65 S.Ct. 961, 89 L.Ed. 1320. This called for the expert judgment of the Commission, and the Commission in its findings found that the effect of the discriminatory acts of the petitioner "may be substantially to lessen competition in the line of commerce in which the purchaser receiving the benefit of said discriminatory price is engaged and to injure, destroy, and prevent competition between those purchasers receiving the benefit of said discriminatory prices, discounts, rebates, and allowances and those to whom they are denied.”
This ultimate finding of fact is based upon subsidiary findings which in turn have *960substantial evidence in the record to support them.
The quantity discounts, in my opinion, are discriminatory and may have the effect denounced by the statute. The fact of the discrimination itself, it seems to me, would have supported an inference that the effect may be to lessen competition. The Supreme Court held such an inference would have been justified in the case of Corn Products Refining Co. et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, supra. Mr. Chief Justice Stone said in that case, 324 U.S. at page 742, 65 S.Ct. at page 969, 89 L.Ed. 1320: “We think that it was permissible for the Commission to infer that these discriminatory allowances were a substantial threat to competition.”
The same thing seems true to me in the instant case, but there was abundant evidence in the record to support the finding, in addition to proper inferences. I think the order should be enforced.