Tom C. Clark

“ We think the statutory prerequisite to enforcement applies when the Commission seeks enforcement by cross-petition after review has been set in motion by the party subject to the order as well as when the Commission makes the original application. [19] There is no reason why one who has complied with the order, but who seeks to have it reviewed and modified or set aside, should be placed in a worse position than one who does not exercise that right. We doubt that Congress intended its requirement for enforcement to depend entirely upon which party goes to court first. ”

“ The Commission found that Ruberoid, in a number of specific instances, had discriminated among customers in the prices charged them for roofing materials. Further finding that the effect of those discriminations 'may be substantially to lessen competition in the line of commerce in which (those customers) are engaged, and to injure, destroy, or prevent competition between (those customers) ,' [1] the Commission held that the discriminations were violations of § 2 (a) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act. ”

“ Neither does recognition of the implicit availability of these defenses allow the seller to relitigate issues already settled by prior proceedings before the Commission which resulted in an order that was affirmed in the courts. If questions of justification, claimed upon the basis of facts relating to costs or meeting competition, have once been finally decided against the seller, it cannot again interpose the same defense upon substantially similar facts when the Commission seeks to show that its order has been violated. ”