It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to be a party to, or assist in, any transaction of sale, or contract to sell, which discriminates to his knowledge against competitors of the purchaser, in that, any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge available at the time of such transaction to said competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like grade, quality, and quantity; to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States; or, to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.
Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Reichert v. Bd. of Fire & Police Commissioners, 905 N.E.2d 861 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 11× “BACKGROUND In August 2005, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (the district court), the plaintiff pled guilty to a charge of “Selling of Goods in Commerce at Unreasonably Low Prices Eliminating Competition,” a federal misdemeanor punishable…”
United States v. Nat'l Dairy Prods. Corp., 372 U.S. 29 (1963).
· cites it 4× “This case involves the question whether § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 13a, making it a crime to sell goods at "unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor," is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite as applied to…”
Native Am. Distrib. v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co., 546 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiffs also mention 15 U.S.C. § 13a, part of the Robinson-Patman Act, which prohibits discrimination in rebates, discounts or advertising service charges, and prohibits underselling in particular localities.”
Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993).
· cites it 2× “29 (1963) (holding that below-cost prices may constitute "unreasonably low" prices for purposes of § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 13a). Although Cargill and Matsushita reserved as a formal matter the question "`whether recovery should ever be available .”
Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. Am. Can Co., 330 U.S. 743 (1947).
· cites it 4× “1528 , 15 U.S.C. § 13a. Any person who is injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden therein may sue and recover threefold the damages by him sustained and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.”
Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971).
· cites it 2× “29 (1963), where we considered a statute forbidding sales of goods at "unreasonably" low prices to injure or eliminate a competitor, 15 U. S. C. § 13a, we thought the statute gave a seller adequate notice that sales below cost were illegal.”
Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., 355 U.S. 373 (1958).
· cites it 4× “1526 , 15 U. S. C. § 13a, sued the respondent for treble damages and injunctive relief under §§ 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat.”
Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981).
“§ 2 (1976), and section 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13a (1976), and that CLSI’s false and malicious accusations unlawfully interfered with Dataphase’s reasonable business expectancies.”
State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 58 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 2× “There, the Court dealt with a constitutional challenge to the validity of § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13a, which made it a crime to sell goods at "unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Ruberoid Co., 343 U.S. 470 (1952).
· cites it 2× “[6] 15 U. S. C. § 13a. [7] For emphasis and appreciation of this concept of American administrative law and of the function of the administrative tribunal as we have evolved it, I am indebted to an unpublished treatise by Dr.”
Gordon v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 422 U.S. 659 (1975).
· cites it 2× “1528 , 15 U. S. C. § 13a. [3] The relief requested included an injunction prohibiting the implementation of certain negotiated commission rates that were to be placed in effect on April 5, 1971, or, alternatively, requiring that negotiated rates be available for transactions 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.