Tom C. Clark

“ The Commission contends that a § 2 (b) defense is precluded if the reductions were so made. If wrong in this, it maintains that the 'good faith' element of a § 2 (b) defense is not made out by showing that competitors employ such a pricing system, [4] and in any event is negatived by Standard's failure to make a bona fide effort to review its pricing system upon passage of the Robinson-Patman Act. ”

“ The Commission findings reveal that those suppliers who did offer a tank-car price to the Standard customers in question were not offering a uniform price: both Shell and the Texas Company, for example, made offers of two cents per gallon off the tank-wagon price, as contrasted with Standard's one-and-one-half-cent reduction.↑ The particular tag 'jobbers' is of no significance here in the light of our affirmance of the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the reductions in price complained of were not made pursuant to a pricing system. ”

“ It is uncontradicted, as pointed out in one of the Commission dissents, that Standard lost three of its seven 'jobbers' by not meeting competitors' pirating offers in 1933 1934. All of this occurred in the context of a major gasoline price war in the Detroit area, created by an extreme overabundance of supply-a setting most unlikely to lend itself to general pricing policies. ”