168 F.2d 620 | 2d Cir. | 1948
The only question involved in this case is the meaning of the phrase, “purchaser of the same class,” as defined in subdivision (k) of § 20 of the General Maximum Price Regulation
We recognize that there is a priori a certain awkwardness in treating as though he constituted a “class,” one who has been able to secure for himself a lower price from the seller than that accorded his fellow jobbers or wholesalers or chain-store retailers. Perhaps we should have found it impossible to go so far, had it not been for the words, “different purchasers or,” in the phrase, “sales to different purchasers or kinds of purchasers,” However, it is impossible to see what could have been intended by this alternative, unless it was to set a “ceiling” for each member in any “kind of purchasers,” when the seller had not sold at the same price to all in that “kind.” Certainly, that result was quite as much forbidden by the purpose of the regulation and of the statute, as to hold down prices which might be uniform throughout a given “land of purchasers.” If the highest price within the “kind” could be fixed by that exacted from the weakest buyer in that “kind," a corresponding margin of increase over March, 1942, would be granted to the seller in trading with the stronger buyers in that “kind.” That gave an obvious chance for inflation.
Judgment affirmed.
7 Fed.Reg. 3103.
7 Fed.Reg. 6615.
Title 50 U.S.C.A. War Appendix, § 801 et seq.
“(k) Purchaser of the Same Class
“ ‘Purchaser of the same class’ refers to the practice adopted by the seller in setting different prices for commodities or services for sales to different purchasers or kinds of purchasers (for example, manufacturer, wholesaler, jobber, retailer, government agency, public institution, individual consumer) or for purchasers located in different areas or for different quantities or grades or under different conditions of sale.”
Bowles v. Nu Way Laundry Co., 10 Cir., 144 F.2d 751, 757.
Rainbow Dyeing & Cleaning Co., Inc., v. Bowles, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 150 F.2d 273.
Bowles v. Wheeler, 9 Cir., 152 F.2d 34, 40.