Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/394

 546US1

Unit: $U15

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

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

183

Stevens, J., dissenting

rather than goods stocked in inventory, the case is a rather ordinary Robinson-Patman suit. Respondent Reeder al­ leged a violation of the Act; the parties submitted a good deal of conﬂicting evidence to the jury; the trial judge properly instructed the jurors on the elements of price discrimination, competitive injury, and damages; and the jury returned a verdict resolving all issues in Reeder’s favor. The Court of Appeals found no error in either the instructions or the sufﬁciency of the evidence. 374 F. 3d 701 (CA8 2004). Two issues of fact bear particular mention. First, Volvo does not challenge the jury’s ﬁnding of price discrimination. Reeder’s theory of the case was that Volvo sought to cut back its number of dealers and deemed Reeder expendable. To avoid possible violations of franchise agree­ ments and state laws, Volvo chose to accomplish this goal by offering Reeder worse prices than other regional dealers. Reeder introduced substantial evidence of this theory. It showed that Volvo had an explicit business strategy, known as the “Volvo Vision,” of “fewer dealers, larger markets.” App. 34. It showed that Volvo could afford to lose sales as it squeezed dealers out, since the boom years of the late 1990’s left Volvo with about as many orders as it could ﬁll. Id., at 256–257. And it showed that Volvo frequently gave worse prices to it than to other regional dealers. On at least four occasions, Volvo sold trucks to Reeder at signiﬁcantly higher prices than to other dealers buying similar trucks around the same time.2 To give one example, in the spring of 1998 Volvo sold 20 trucks to Reeder at a 9% concession, but sold similar trucks to a Texas dealer at a 12.3% conces­ sion. Id., at 132–134. This left Reeder paying $2,606 more per truck. Id., at 134. Although the Court chides Reeder 2 Additionally, on more than 12 other occasions, Volvo offered worse deals to Reeder than it gave to dealers who made comparable purchases. Arguably due to Volvo’s stingy concessions, Reeder failed to close with its customers in these instances and thus never ended up buying the trucks at issue from Volvo.