Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-207 (2020)
Destruction of competition by price discrimination prohibited
- It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation doing business in the State of Arkansas and engaged in the production, manufacture, distribution, or sale of any commodity or product or of service or output of a service trade of general use or consumption or of the product or service of any public utility with the intent to destroy the competition of any regular established dealer in the commodity, product, or service, or to prevent the competition of any person, firm, private corporation, or municipal or other public corporation who or which in good faith intends and attempts to become a dealer to discriminate between different sections, communities, or cities or portions thereof, or between different locations in the sections, communities, cities, or portions thereof in this state, by selling or furnishing the commodity, product, or service at a lower rate in one (1) section, community, or city or any portion thereof, or in one (1) location in the section, community, or city or any portion thereof, than in another, after making allowance for difference, if any, in the grade, quality, or quantity and in the actual cost of transportation from the point of production, if a raw product or commodity, or from the point of manufacture, if a manufactured product or commodity.
- The inhibition of this section against locality discrimination shall include any scheme of special rebates, collateral contracts, or any device of any nature whereby such discrimination is, in substance or fact, effected in violation of the spirit and intent of this subchapter.
- This subchapter shall not be construed to prohibit the meeting in good faith of a competitive rate, or to prevent a reasonable classification of service by public utilities for the purpose of establishing rates.
History. Acts 1937, No. 253, § 1; Pope's Dig., § 14311; A.S.A. 1947, § 70-301.
Case Notes
Constitutionality.
The complaint that the Unfair Practices Act is void under the constitution because it fails to define with reasonable certainty the acts it declares unlawful, the particular language complained of as being vague and indefinite being “to discriminate between different sections, communities or cities or portions thereof, or between different locations in such sections, communities, cities or portions thereof in this state” was not tenable, the language sets forth as definite a standard as the evil to be regulated will permit. Concrete, Inc. v. Arkhola Sand & Gravel Co., 230 Ark. 315, 322 S.W.2d 452 (1959).
Applicability.
This subchapter does not apply to interstate price discrimination; this subchapter, by its very terms, applies only to price discrimination between one area in Arkansas and another area in Arkansas. Chalmers v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 326 Ark. 895, 935 S.W.2d 258 (1996).
Remedy in Seller Only.
Photographer could not recover triple damages from school district under the Unfair Practices Act for entering into a contract with another photographer which required payment of “commission” in return for the exclusive right to take pictures, since the act only provides a remedy in favor of one seller against another seller and the school district was either a buyer of photographs or an agent of the student or parent buyers. Burge v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 272 Ark. 67, 612 S.W.2d 108 (1981).