In a May 17, 2005 column, we predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court would take a step toward rightsizing the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) by reversing a technical, though glaring, mistake made by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in deciding the case Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. v. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corp.[FOOTNOTE 1]

As a quick review of the basics, under the RPA, it is unlawful for any person to discriminate in price between different purchasers of like grade and quality.[FOOTNOTE 2] However an important RPA requirement, overlooked by the 8th Circuit, states that “no single sale can violate the Robinson-Patman Act.”[FOOTNOTE 3]

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]