Unfair Trade Practices- Robinson-Patman Act – “Per Se” Nature of Section 2(e)
The Federal Trade Commission, finding that a manufacturer and seller of dress patterns discriminated between competing purchasers in violation of section 2 (e) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, by paying transportation costs and donating storage cabinets and monthly catalogues to its large variety store customers while charging its smaller fabric store customers for the same services and facilities, issued a cease and desist order against these practices. The commission held that neither the absence of competitive injury nor the presence of cost justification are available as defenses to section 2 (e). On petition for review, the court of appeals remanded the case to allow the defendant to submit a defense of cost justification. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, reversed in part. Neither absence of competitive injury nor the presence of cost justification constitute a defense to a primafacie violation of section 2 (e). Federal Trade Commission v. Simplicity Pattern Co., 360 U.S. 55 (1959).