Volvo Trucks North America v. Reeder-Simco GMC
Reeder-Simco GMC, a Volvo truck dealership, sued Volvo Trucks North America, claiming Volvo violated the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) by giving more favorable prices to other Volvo dealerships. The RPA prohibits sellers from discriminating in price between different purchasers to reduce competition or create a monopoly. To have a claim under the RPA, a person or company must actually be a purchaser. The RPA does not protect a person or company who has not made a purchase, even if price discrimination is the reason no purchase was made.
Volvo generally manufactures its trucks after a retail customer has accepted a bid from a dealership. The dealerships compete against one another in this bidding process. To lower their bids, dealerships seek concessions from Volvo for prices below the listed wholesale price. Reeder claimed that Volvo violated the RPA by offering lower price concessions to certain dealers in order to hamper competition among its dealerships. However, Reeder presented only four actual purchases in which another dealership was given a lower concession. Nevertheless, Reeder claimed losses that went beyond the amount it lost on these four purchases.
The district court allowed Reeder’s case to go to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Reeder and awarded damages of $1,358,000. This amount accounted for Reeder’s total claimed losses due to Volvo’s discrimination on price concessions; the jury did not limit Volvo’s liability to the four actual purchases that Reeder made. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the four purchases gave Reeder status as a purchaser. Once Reeder established itself as a purchaser, it had a valid claim under the RPA for all damages resulting from Volvo’s price discrimination, even for purchases that were not consummated.
Questions Presented:
1. Whether an unaccepted offer that does not lead to a purchase - so that there is not “discriminat[ion] * * * between different purchasers”
as the statutory language contemplates - may be the basis for liability under the Act.
2. Whether the Act permits recovery of damages by a disfavored purchaser that does lose sales or profits to a competitor that does not purchase from the defendant, but does not lose sales or
profits to any purchaser that “receives the benefit of” the defendant's price discrimination.
