Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/393

 546US1

182

Unit: $U15

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

VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. REEDERSIMCO GMC, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Ap­ peals for the Eighth Circuit is reversed, and the case is re­ manded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Thomas joins, dissenting. Franchised dealers who sell Volvo trucks, like those who sell automobiles, farm equipment, washing machines, and a variety of other expensive items, routinely engage in negoti­ ations with prospective purchasers. Sometimes the pros­ pect is simultaneously negotiating with two Volvo dealers, sometimes with a Volvo dealer and a dealer representing an­ other manufacturer, and still other times a satisﬁed customer who is generally familiar with the options available in a com­ petitive market may negotiate with only one dealer at a time. Until today, the Robinson-Patman Act’s prohibition of price discrimination1 would have protected the dealer’s ability to negotiate in all those situations. Today, however, by adopt­ ing a novel, transaction-speciﬁc concept of competition, the Court eliminates that statutory protection in all but those rare situations in which a prospective purchaser is negotiat­ ing with two Volvo dealers at the same time. I Setting aside for the moment the fact that the case in­ volves goods specially ordered for particular customers 1 Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by § 1 of the RobinsonPatman Act, provides in relevant part: “It shall be unlawful for any person. . . to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality. . . where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the beneﬁt of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them.” 38 Stat. 730, as amended, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. § 13(a).