Falls City Industries, Inc. v. Vanco Beverage, Inc. (1982)
- Docket
- 81-1271
- Decided
- 1982-01-01
Summary
Question: Is the meeting-competition defense of section 2(b) of the Clayton Act available only if the defendant sets its lower price on customer-by-customer basis and creates the price discrimination by lowering rather than by raising prices? Conclusion: No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that section 2(b) is not so inflexible. The Court held that the meeting-competition defense required a seller at least to show the existence of facts that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that the seller's lower price would meet the equally low price of a competitor and required the seller to demonstrate that its lower price was a good faith response to a competitor's low price. "Falls City contends that it has established its meeting-competition defense as a matter of law. In the absence of further findings, we do not agree," wrote Justice Blackmun.