US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

FTC V. SIMPLICITY PATTERN CO., INC., 360 U. S. 55 (1959)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 360 U. S. 55 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

FTC v. Simplicity Pattern Co., Inc., 360 U.S. 55 (1959)

Federal Trade Commission v. Simplicity Pattern Co., Inc.

No. 406

Argued April 21, 1959

Decided June 8, 1959*

360 U.S. 55


In this case, the Federal Trade Commission found that one of the Nation's largest manufacturers of dress patterns discriminated in favor of its larger customers by furnishing to them services and facilities not accorded to competing smaller customers on proportionally equal terms, in violation of § 2(e) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, and it ordered the manufacturer to cease and desist from doing so.

Held: the Commission's order is sustained. Pp. 360 U. S. 56-71.

(a) Though the manufacturer's larger customers sold the patterns for a profit, while its smaller customers sold them as an accommodation to purchasers of their fabrics, and no specific injury to competition in patterns was shown, the record justified the Commission's finding that they were competitors. Pp. 360 U. S. 62-64.

(b) Given competition between the two classes of customers, neither absence of competitive injury nor the presence of "cost justification" is available as a defense to a charge of violating § 2(e) of the Act. Pp. 360 U. S. 64-71.

103 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 258 F.2d 673, affirmed in part and reversed m part. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 360 U. S. 56

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™