Court Opinion

ID: 9427453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:20:51.757161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:07.299861
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice White,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Parts I, II, and III of the Courtis opinion, but dissent from Part IV. Because it was thought the issue was irrelevant where the buyer knows that the price offered is lower than necessary to meet competition, neither the Commission nor the Court of Appeals decided whether Borden itself would have had a valid meeting-competition defense. The Court should not decide this question here, but should remand to the Commission, whose job it is initially to consider such matters.
For the reason stated by the Commission and the Court of Appeals, I am also convinced that the United States made a sufficient, unrebutted showing that Borden would not have a cost-justification defense to a Robinson-Patman Act charge.