Hey Folks--
This thread has gone from boring to annoying, and has nothing to do with TRs.
Could you people take it off-line?
Thanks,
Hugh Barber
>
>In a message dated 5/31/00 4:06:53 PM !!!First Boot!!!, spitlist@gte.net
>writes:
>
><< There is no argument. I cite facts, you cite theory. You have nothing
to
>back up your argument except, "I get better pricing if I ask
> for it". Of course you do, whiners always get their way.
> >>
>
>I have yet to see an actual relevant fact from you, only your interpretation
>of what are apparently limited experiences. Let me give you some facts.
>
>First, based on your rantings, I have to assume you are speaking about the
>Robinson-Patman act which governs price discrimination in interstate commerce.
>
>As I said previously, there are cases of price discrimination, but your keen
>legal opinion that if it was printed they had to stick with it is nonsense.
>
>To quote from the article Executive Summary of Antitrust Laws:Price
>Discrimination by By
>Richard M. Steuer
>Kaye, Scholer, Fierman,
>Hays & Handler, LLP
>
>"The Robinson-Patman Act prohibits discriminations in price between
>purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality which are likely to
>result in substantial injury to competition. Each of the elements is separate
>and must be found before the statute is violated."
>
>Essentially the goods have to be of like kind and quality and injury to
>competition has to result.
>
>"Injury to competition. Discrimination in sales of goods of like grade and
>quality are unlawful only if they are likely to result in substantial injury
>to competition. Essentially, such injury can be of two types: (1) to buyers'
>competition (injury in the secondary line); and (2) to sellers' competition
>(injury in the primary line).
>
>When secondary-line injury is charged, the inquiry focuses on the competitive
>harm suffered by the disfavored purchaser who pays the higher price in
>relation to the favored competitor. Thus, for secondary-line injury to be
>present, the discrimination must be between competing purchasers. If both
>purchasers are ultimate consumers and do not compete in resale of the
>product, no violation can be found. Not only must the purchasers compete
>geographically, they must, as a general rule, be on the same functional
>level. A wholesaler who buys at a lower price does not compete with a retail
>customer of the same seller, even though a price discrimination is present."
>
>Now those are facts. In other words the sale of parts to an individual, for
>use on his LBC is NOT a violation.
>
>Perhaps you can cite some case law to bolster your position?
>
>
>
|