1. What four factual elements must be proven by the plaintiff-respondents to establish a Section 2 Robinson-Patman violation? The four factual elements that are recognizes by Robinson-Patman is the sellers may select their own customers in good faith transactions and not in restraint of trade. The price changes may be made in response to changing conditions. Price differentials based on differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery of commodities are permitted. A seller in good faith may meet the equally low price of a competitor.
2. What were the holdings of the lower courts? Texaco violated the Act. There was an extraordinary absence of evidence to connect Gull's and Dompier's discounts to any savings enjoyed by Texaco. Both Gull and Dompier received the full discount on all purchases even though most of their volume was resold directly to consumers, and the extra margin on those sales obviously enabled them to price aggressively in both their retail and wholesale marketing.
3. What is Texaco’s argument for charging different prices to its customers? Texaco argues that although it charged different prices, it did not discriminate in price within the meaning of the Act, and that, at least to the extent that Gull and Dompier acted as wholesalers, the price differentials did not injure competition.
4. Why does the Court reject Texaco’s argument? The court rejected Texaco's argument, reasoning that the "presumed legality of functional discounts" had been rebutted by evidence that the amount of Gull's and Dompier's discounts was not reasonably related to the cost of any function they performed.
1. What is the factual basis that caused John Hancock Company to ...