Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/391

 546US1

180

Unit: $U15

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

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

contractual commitment. Because Robinson-Patman “pro­ hibits only discrimination ‘between different purchasers,’ ” Brief for Petitioner 26 (quoting 15 U. S. C. § 13(a); emphasis added), Volvo and the United States argue, the Act does not reach markets characterized by competitive bidding and special-order sales, as opposed to sales from inventory. See Brief for Petitioner 27; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 9, 17–20. We need not decide that question today. Assuming the Act applies to the head-to-head transactions, Reeder did not establish that it was disfavored vis-a`-vis other Volvo dealers in the rare instances in which they com­ peted for the same sale—let alone that the alleged discrimi­ nation was substantial. See 1 ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Developments 478–479 (5th ed. 2002) (“No inference of injury to competition is permitted when the discrimination is not substantial.” (collecting cases)). Reeder’s evidence showed loss of only one sale to another Volvo dealer, a sale of 12 trucks that would have generated $30,000 in gross proﬁts for Reeder. 374 F. 3d, at 705. Per its policy, Volvo initially offered Reeder and the other dealer the same concession. Volvo ultimately granted a larger con­ cession to the other dealer, but only after it had won the bid. In the only other instance of head-to-head competition Reeder identiﬁed, Volvo increased Reeder’s initial 17% dis­ count to 18.9%, to match the discount offered to the other competing Volvo dealer; neither dealer won the bid. See supra, at 172. In short, if price discrimination between two purchasers existed at all, it was not of such magnitude as to affect substantially competition between Reeder and the “favored” Volvo dealer. IV Interbrand competition, our opinions afﬁrm, is the “pri­ mary concern of antitrust law.” Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U. S. 36, 51–52, n. 19 (1977). The Robinson-Patman Act signals no large departure from that