Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/384

 546US1

Unit: $U15

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

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

173

Opinion of the Court

tistical analysis whether Reeder was disfavored on average as compared to another dealer or set of dealers. Id., at 1462–1464. The jury found that there was a reasonable possibility that discriminatory pricing may have harmed competition be­ tween Reeder and other Volvo truck dealers, and that Vol­ vo’s discriminatory pricing injured Reeder. App. 480–486. It further found that Reeder ’s damages from Volvo’s Robinson-Patman Act violation exceeded $1.3 million. Id., at 486.2 The District Court summarily denied Volvo’s mo­ tion for judgment as a matter of law and the company’s alter­ native motion for new trial or remittitur, awarded treble damages on the Robinson-Patman Act claim, and entered judgment. A divided Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit af­ ﬁrmed. The appeals court noted that, “as a threshold mat­ ter[,] Reeder had to show [that] it was a ‘purchaser’ within the meaning of the [Act],” 374 F. 3d, at 708, i. e., that “there were actual sales at two different prices[,]. . . a sale to [Reeder] and a sale to another Volvo dealer,” id., at 707–708. Rejecting Volvo’s contention that competitive bidding situa­ tions do not give rise to claims under the Robinson-Patman Act, id., at 708–709, the Court of Appeals observed that Reeder was “more than an unsuccessful bidder,” id., at 709. The four instances in which Reeder “actually purchased Volvo trucks following successful bids on contracts,” the court concluded, sufﬁced to render Reeder a purchaser within the meaning of the Act. Ibid. The Court of Appeals next determined that a jury could reasonably decide that Reeder was “in actual competition” with favored dealers. Ibid. “[A]s of the time the price differential was imposed,” the court reasoned, “the favored 2 The jury also awarded Reeder damages of $513,750 on Reeder’s state­ law claim under the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act. No question is before us respecting that claim, which trained on Volvo’s alleged design to eliminate Reeder as a Volvo dealer. See supra, at 171.