Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448and where the effect of such below-cost sale or discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such below-cost sale or discrimination, or with customers of either of them. Nothing contained in this Code section shall prevent differentials which make only a due allowance for differences in the cost of refining, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such product is sold or delivered to such purchasers. Nothing contained in this Code section shall prevent persons from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade. Nothing contained in this Code section shall prevent price changes, from time to time, which are in response to changing conditions affecting the market for or the marketability of product of the grade and quality concerned, such as, but not limited to, imperfect or damaged product, obsolescence of product, distress sales under court process, or sales in good faith in discontinuance of business at a particular location or with respect to the product itself.
(Code 1981, §10-1-254, enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 458, § 1.)
Regulation of prices pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-1-254 is unconstitutional, inasmuch as the statute engages in price-fixing and the gasoline industry is not affected with a public interest. Strickland v. Ports Petroleum Co., 256 Ga. 669, 353 S.E.2d 17 (1987).
- Validity, construction, and application of state statutory provisions prohibiting sale of gasoline below cost, 26 A.L.R.6th 249.
Meeting competition defense under § 2(b) of Clayton Act, as amended by Robinson-Patman Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 13(b)), 164 A.L.R. Fed. 633.
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1987-02-16
Citation: 353 S.E.2d 17, 256 Ga. 669, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 601
Snippet: its gasoline below cost in violation of OCGA § 10-1-254 (a) (1); and 2) appellee Texaco et al., from selling