Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/395

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

546US1

184

Unit: $U15

[08-22-08 15:43:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN

VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. REEDERSIMCO GMC, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting

for failing to perform statistical analyses, see ante, at 172– 173, 178, the jury clearly had a sufficient basis for finding price discrimination. It could infer that Volvo’s pricing poli­ cies were comparable to a secret catalog listing one set of low prices for its “A” dealers and a higher set for its “B” dealers like Reeder, with an exception providing for the same prices where an “A” dealer and a “B” dealer were en­ gaged in negotiations with the same customer at the same time. Second, the jury found that the favored dealers at issue in these comparisons were competitive players in the same geographic market as Reeder. This conclusion is implicit in the jury’s finding of competitive injury, since the jury in­ struction on that element required Reeder to prove “a substantial difference in price in sales by defendant to plaintiff and other competing Volvo dealers over a significant period of time. This requires plaintiff to show that it and the other Volvo dealer(s) were retail dealers within the same geographic market and that the effect of the price differential was to allow the other Volvo dealer(s) to draw sales or profits away from plain­ tiff.” App. 480, Instruction No. 18. Volvo does not dispute that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury finding that Reeder and the favored dealers operated in the same geographic market.3 Volvo’s restraint is wise, as Reeder offered evidence that truck buyers are unsurprisingly mobile, that it delivered trucks to purchasers throughout the region, and that customers would sometimes solicit bids from more than one regional Volvo dealer. 3 Similarly, and despite its selective discussion of the extensive eviden­ tiary record, ante, at 170–173, the Court does not question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding that Volvo engaged in price discrimination against Reeder relative to other regional Volvo dealers for a significant period of time.