Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-2-103

Discriminatory sales - exceptions

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation doing business in the state of Colorado and engaged in the production, manufacture, distribution, or sale of any commodity, product, or service of general use or consumption, or the sale of any merchandise or product by any public utility, with the intent to destroy the competition of any regular established dealer in such commodity, product, or service, or to prevent the competition of any person, firm, private corporation, or municipal or other public corporation that 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 such sections, communities, cities, or portions thereof in this state by selling or furnishing a commodity, product, or service at a lower rate in one section, community, or city, or any portion thereof, or in one location in such section, community, or city, or any portion thereof than in another after making allowance for the difference, if any, in the grade or quality, quantity, and 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. Motion picture films when delivered under a lease to motion picture houses shall not be deemed to be a commodity or product of general use or consumption. (2) Nothing in this article shall be construed to affect or apply to any service or product sold, rendered, or furnished by any public utility, the sale, rendition, or furnishing of which is subject to regulation by the Colorado public utilities commission or by any municipal regulatory body. This article shall not be construed to prohibit the meeting in good faith of a competitive rate. (3) The inhibition in this section against locality discrimination shall embrace 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 article. (4) It is an unfair trade practice for any person, firm, or corporation doing business in this state and engaged in the production, manufacture, or distribution of either written or printed material or motion pictures to require a buyer or lessee, as a condition of the purchase or lease of such material or motion pictures, to accept other material or motion pictures which the buyer or lessee deems objectionable and written objection is made thereto by such buyer or lessee to the seller or lessor of said material or motion pictures within thirty days after delivery to said buyer or lessee. If such written objection is made within the time provided in this subsection (4), and the seller or lessor does not, within ten days of the receipt of said objection, repurchase or recall such objectionable material or motion pictures from the buyer or lessee, all the remedies provided in this article shall be applicable against said seller or lessor. The provisions of this subsection (4) shall apply whether the material or motion pictures are acquired by the buyer or lessee for resale, sublease, or for any other purpose.

Source: L. 37: p. 1280, § 1. CSA: C. 48, § 302(1). L. 41: p. 820, § 1. L. 49: p. 342, § 1. CRS 53: § 55-2-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 55-2-1. L. 69: p. 368, § 1. L. 2007: (1) amended, p. 513, § 1, effective April 16.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc. (1992) colo · cites it 52× “Enforcement Provision Private enforcement of certain sections of the Unfair Practices Act, including the section that prohibits price discrimination, is authorized by section 6-2-111(1): Any person, firm, private corporation, municipal corporation, public corporation, or trade…”

Western Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. (2013) cod · cites it 11× “interpreted similar language to hold that C.R.S. § 6-2-103 was limited to primary-line claims.”

Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc. (1992) coloctapp · cites it 6× “2) prohibits certain anticompetitive discriminatory pricing structures, and states: (1) It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation doing business in the state of Colorado and engaged in the ... sale of any commodity, product, or service, or output of a service trade of…”

Ervin v. Amoco Oil Co. (1994) coloctapp · cites it 5× “They further alleged that Amoco operated under a pricing strategy which was contrary to § 6-2-103, C.R.S. (1992 RepLVol. 2), that the pricing strategy discriminated against plaintiffs as opposed to company-operated facilities, and that it was not imposed in good faith.”

Carlock v. Pillsbury Co. (1989) mnd “(the Colorado plaintiffs) allege that defendants have engaged in price discrimination in violation of Colo. Rev.Stat. § 6-2-103. Section 6-2-103 prohibits charging different prices for a product at different locations within Colorado with the intent to destroy competition.”

Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc. (1990) coloctapp · cites it 3× “Section 6-2-103(1), C.R.S., prohibits locality discrimination.”

Direct Sales Tire Co. v. District Court in & for the County of Jefferson (1984) colo “(1973), which states: If any person, firm, private corporation, municipal corporation, public corporation, or trade association, in writing and under oath, submits to the attorney general a statement setting forth facts sufficient to constitute a prima facie case of violation of…”

McDowell v. United States (1994) coloctapp “may maintain an action to enjoin a continuance of any act in violation of sections 6-2-103 to 6-2-108 or section 6-2-110 and, if injured thereby, for the recovery of damages.”

Venta, Inc. v. Frontier Oil and Refining Co. (1993) cod · cites it 2× “C.R.S. § 6-2-103(1) (West 1992 Repl. Vol.”

Colorado Property Owners for Property Rights v. Town of Breckenridge, Colorado (2024) cod · cites it 3× “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-2-103 (1). The Court finds that the rational basis test is the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-2-103(1) — 4 cases

Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc. (1992) colo “Enforcement Provision Private enforcement of certain sections of the Unfair Practices Act, including the section that prohibits price discrimination, is authorized by section 6-2-111(1): Any person, firm, private corporation, municipal corporation, public corporation, or trade…”

Ervin v. Amoco Oil Co. (1994) coloctapp “They further alleged that Amoco operated under a pricing strategy which was contrary to § 6-2-103, C.R.S. (1992 RepLVol. 2), that the pricing strategy discriminated against plaintiffs as opposed to company-operated facilities, and that it was not imposed in good faith.”

Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc. (1990) coloctapp “Section 6-2-103(1), C.R.S., prohibits locality discrimination.”

Venta, Inc. v. Frontier Oil and Refining Co. (1993) cod “C.R.S. § 6-2-103(1) (West 1992 Repl. Vol.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-2-103(3) — 1 case

Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc. (1992) coloctapp “2) prohibits certain anticompetitive discriminatory pricing structures, and states: (1) It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation doing business in the state of Colorado and engaged in the ... sale of any commodity, product, or service, or output of a service trade of…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.