Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Competitive Bidding Assistance Programs Do Not Violate Robinson-Patman Act
On Jan. 10, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its first decision in over a decade interpreting the federal price discrimination statute, known as the Robinson-Patman Act (the “RPA”). In a 7-2 decision, the Court in Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. (04-905), held that a heavy-duty truck manufacturer's unequal price concessions to its dealers bidding for special order jobs do not violate the RPA unless they discriminate between dealers competing for the same retail customer.
Background
Section 2(a) of the RPA prohibits sellers from discriminating in price between “different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality,” when such discrimination may “substantially … lessen competition or … injure, destroy or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination.” 15 U.S.C. '13(a). Reeder, a franchised dealer of Volvo heavy-duty trucks, claimed that Volvo violated the Act by giving other dealers more advantageous wholesale discounts for their bids on retail truck contracts. Customers in the heavy-duty truck industry typically invite select dealers to bid on orders for particular trucks, built to order to unique specifications. Each selected dealer, before bidding, requests from its manufacturer a job-specific price concession (or discount) that it uses to prepare its bid. In most cases, the customer selects only a single dealer representing each manufacturer to provide a bid. In the rare cases where more than one Volvo dealer was selected to bid, Volvo's written policy is to offer each the same price concession.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.