Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.040

Price discrimination prohibited; price differentials

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      646.040 Price discrimination prohibited; price differentials. (1) It is unlawful for any person engaged in commerce or food commerce, or both, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities, or services or output of a service trade, of like grade and quality or to discriminate in price between different sections, communities or cities or portions thereof or between different locations in sections, communities, cities or portions thereof in this state, where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them.

      (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prevent:

      (a) Differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale or delivery, resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which the commodities are sold or delivered to purchasers.

      (b) Persons engaged in selling goods, wares or merchandise, or service or output of a service trade, in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade.

      (c) Price changes from time to time where in response to changing conditions affecting the market for or marketability of the goods concerned, such as but not limited to actual or imminent deterioration of perishable goods, obsolescence of seasonal goods, distress sales under court process, or sales in good faith in discontinuance of business in the goods concerned.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Top Service Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Top Service Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance (1978) or · cites it 11× “090, which reads: No person engaged in commerce or food commerce, or both, in the course of such commerce, shall knowingly induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by ORS 646.040 to 646.080. Thus the injured plaintiff in an action under ORS 646.”
Redmond Ready-Mix, Inc. v. Coats (1978) or · cites it 10× “8 Because of the basis on which we decide this case it is unnecessary to reach the question of "justification.” ORS 646.010 to 646.180, the Anti-Price Discrimination Law, enacted in 1937, was modeled after the Robinson-Patman amendment, adopted in 1936, to the Clayton Act.”
Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. (1990) or · cites it 4× “, (Yamaha) for price discrimination, ORS 646.040(1), 1 for breach of contract, and in tort for intentional interference with business and economic relationships.”
Forster v. Kawasaki Motors Corp. (1985) orctapp · cites it 6× “ke grade and quality or to discriminate in price between different sections, communities or cities or portions thereof or between different locations in sections, communities, cities or portions thereof in this state, where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially…”
Cain v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (1991) ord · cites it 6× “PRICE DISCRIMINATION Plaintiff claims that defendant violated ORS 646.040 of Oregon’s Anti-Price Discrimination Law which states: It is unlawful for any person engaged in commerce .”
Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp. (1991) or “Plaintiff sued defendant alleging that defendant had sold motorcycles to one of plaintiffs competitors in a manner that constituted price discrimination under ORS 646.040(1), breach of contract, and intentional interference with business and economic relations.”
Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. (1989) orctapp · cites it 2× “” Plaintiffs claims arise under ORS 646.040(1), which provides, in pertinent part: 3 “It is unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, * * * either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities, * * * of like grade and quality or…”
EcoShield Pest Solutions Portland, LLC v. Grit Marketing, LLC (2025) ord · cites it 6× “As to Exhibits 1–3, 5–9, and 11, the Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of the materials from Defendant Grit’s and Plaintiff’s websites, the Arizona Corporation Commission’s 1 The statutory claims are price discrimination under ORS 646.040, special payments to…”
Wildish Sand & Gravel Co. v. Northwest Natural Gas Co. (1990) orctapp “ORS 646.040 prohibits charging different prices to similarly situated customers when the discrimination would have a substantial anticompetitive effect.”
EcoShield Pest Solutions Portland, LLC v. Grit Marketing, LLC (2024) ord “in the course of such commerce, shall knowingly induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by ORS 646.040[.]” O.R.S. 646.090. Defendant Grit, though its salespeople, has admitted to discriminating in price between residential consumers of pest-control…”
Cascade Health v. Peacehealth (2007) ca9 “Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.040 (1). CASCADE HEALTH v.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.040(1) — 7 cases
Redmond Ready-Mix, Inc. v. Coats (1978) or “8 Because of the basis on which we decide this case it is unnecessary to reach the question of "justification.” ORS 646.010 to 646.180, the Anti-Price Discrimination Law, enacted in 1937, was modeled after the Robinson-Patman amendment, adopted in 1936, to the Clayton Act.”
Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. (1990) or “, (Yamaha) for price discrimination, ORS 646.040(1), 1 for breach of contract, and in tort for intentional interference with business and economic relationships.”
Top Service Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance (1978) or “090, which reads: No person engaged in commerce or food commerce, or both, in the course of such commerce, shall knowingly induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by ORS 646.040 to 646.080. Thus the injured plaintiff in an action under ORS 646.”
Forster v. Kawasaki Motors Corp. (1985) orctapp “ke grade and quality or to discriminate in price between different sections, communities or cities or portions thereof or between different locations in sections, communities, cities or portions thereof in this state, where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially…”
Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp. (1991) or “Plaintiff sued defendant alleging that defendant had sold motorcycles to one of plaintiffs competitors in a manner that constituted price discrimination under ORS 646.040(1), breach of contract, and intentional interference with business and economic relations.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.040(2) — 2 cases
Top Service Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance (1978) or “090, which reads: No person engaged in commerce or food commerce, or both, in the course of such commerce, shall knowingly induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by ORS 646.040 to 646.080. Thus the injured plaintiff in an action under ORS 646.”
Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. (1989) orctapp “” Plaintiffs claims arise under ORS 646.040(1), which provides, in pertinent part: 3 “It is unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, * * * either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities, * * * of like grade and quality or…”
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.