Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/382

 546US1

Unit: $U15

[08-22-08 15:43:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 546 U. S. 164 (2006)

171

Opinion of the Court

ing its bid; it purchases trucks from Volvo only if and when the retail customer accepts its bid. Ibid. Reeder was one of many Volvo dealers, each assigned by Volvo to a geographic territory. Reeder’s territory encom­ passed ten counties in Arkansas and two in Oklahoma. 374 F. 3d, at 709. Although nothing prohibits a Volvo dealer from bidding outside its territory, ibid., Reeder rarely bid against another Volvo dealer, see id., at 705; 5 App. in No. 02–2462 (CA8), pp. 1621–1622 (hereinafter C. A. App.). In the atypical event that the same retail customer solicited a bid from more than one Volvo dealer, Volvo’s stated policy was to provide the same price concession to each dealer com­ peting head to head for the same sale. 4 id., at 1161–1162; 5 id., at 1619, 1621. In 1997, Volvo announced a program it called “Volvo Vi­ sion,” in which the company addressed problems it faced in the market for heavy trucks, among them, the company’s assessment that it had too many dealers. Volvo projected enlarging the size of its dealers’ markets and reducing the number of dealers from 146 to 75. 374 F. 3d, at 705. Coinci­ dentally, Reeder learned that Volvo had given another dealer a price concession greater than the concessions Reeder typi­ cally received, and “Reeder came to suspect it was one of the dealers Volvo sought to eliminate.” Ibid. Reeder ﬁled suit against Volvo in February 2000, alleging losses attributable to Volvo’s violation of the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act and the Robinson-Patman Act. At trial, Reeder’s vice-president, William E. Heck, ac­ knowledged that Volvo’s policy was to offer equal conces­ sions to Volvo dealers bidding against one another for a par­ ticular contract, but he contended that the policy “was not executed.” 4 C. A. App. 1162. Reeder presented evidence concerning two instances over the ﬁve-year course of its au­ thorized dealership when Reeder bid against other Volvo dealers for a particular sale. 374 F. 3d, at 705, 708–709. One of the two instances involved Reeder’s bid on a sale to