Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/385

 546US1

174

Unit: $U15

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

VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. REEDERSIMCO GMC, INC. Opinion of the Court

and disfavored purchasers competed at the same functional level. . . and within the same geographic market.” Ibid. (quoting Best Brands Beverage, Inc. v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 842 F. 2d 578, 585 (CA2 1987)). The court further held that the jury could properly ﬁnd from the evidence that Reeder had proved competitive injury from price discrimina­ tion. Speciﬁcally, the court pointed to evidence showing that (1) Volvo intended to reduce the number of its dealers; (2) Reeder lost the Hiland Dairy contract, for which it com­ peted head to head with another Volvo dealer; (3) Reeder would have earned more proﬁts, had it received the conces­ sions other dealers received; and (4) Reeder’s sales had de­ clined over a period of time. 374 F. 3d, at 711–712. The court also afﬁrmed the award of treble damages to Reeder. Id., at 712–714. Judge Hansen dissented as to the Robinson-Patman Act claim. “Traditional [Robinson-Patman Act] cases,” he ob­ served, “involve sellers and purchasers that carry inventory or deal in fungible goods.” Id., at 718. The majority, Judge Hansen commented, “attempt[ed] to ﬁt a square peg into a round hole,” ibid., when it extended the Act’s reach to the marketplace for heavy-duty trucks, where “special-order products are sold to individual, pre-identiﬁed customers only after competitive bidding,” ibid. There may be competition among dealers for the opportunity to bid on potential sales, he noted, but “[o]nce bidding begins,. . . the relevant market becomes limited to the needs and demands of a particular end user, with only a handful of dealers competing for the ultimate sale.” Id., at 719. Violation of the Act, in Judge Hansen’s view, could not be predicated on the instances Reeder identiﬁed in which it was a purchaser, for “there was no actual competition between” Reeder and another Volvo dealer at the time of Reeder’s purchases. Ibid. “Without proof of actual competition” for the same customer when the requisite purchases were made, he concluded, “Reeder can­