It is unlawful for any person engaged in commerce:
A. to pay or contract for payment of anything of value to or for the benefit of a
customer as compensation for any services or facilities furnished by or through the
customer in connection with the processing, handling, sale or offering for sale of any
products or commodities manufactured, sold or offered for sale unless the payment or
compensation is available on proportionally equal terms to all other customers
competing in the distribution of the products or commodities;
B. to discriminate in favor of one purchaser against another purchaser of a
commodity bought for resale, with or without processing, by contracting to furnish or
furnishing, or by contributing to the furnishing of any services or facilities connected with
the processing, handling, sale or offering for sale of the commodity purchased on terms
not accorded to all purchasers on proportionally equal terms; or
C. knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by the
Price Discrimination Act.
History: 1953 Comp., § 49-11-6, enacted by Laws 1961, ch. 229, § 6.
Notes of Decisions
Michelson v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, 669 F. Supp. 1244 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
· cites it 2× “and the effect of such discrimination was substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly" in violation of N.M.Stat.Ann. § 57-14-6. That section of the statute, whose terms appear never to have been construed by a court in a published decision, is set out in the…”
Michelson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 669 F. Supp. 1244 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
· cites it 2× “and the effect of such discrimination was substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly” in violation of N.M.Stat.Ann. § 57-14-6. That section of the statute, whose terms appear never to have been construed by a court in a published decision, is set out in the…”
N.M. Stat. § 57-14-6(A): 2 cases
Michelson v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, 669 F. Supp. 1244 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
“and the effect of such discrimination was substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly" in violation of N.M.Stat.Ann. § 57-14-6. That section of the statute, whose terms appear never to have been construed by a court in a published decision, is set out in the…”
Michelson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 669 F. Supp. 1244 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
“and the effect of such discrimination was substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly” in violation of N.M.Stat.Ann. § 57-14-6. That section of the statute, whose terms appear never to have been construed by a court in a published decision, is set out in the…”
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.