GEORGE VAN CAMP & SONS CO. V. AMERICAN CAN CO., 278 U. S. 245 (1929)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 278 U. S. 245
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/278/245/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/278/245/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
George Van Camp & Sons Co. v. American Can Co., 278 U.S. 245 (1929)
George Van Camp & Sons Company v. American Can Company
No. 94
Argued December 5, 6, 1928
Decided January 2, 1929
278 U.S. 245
Syllabus
1. Petitioner and another company are severally engaged in the business of packing and selling food products in tin cans in interstate commerce. Respondent manufactures tin cans, sells them to petitioner and the other company, and leases them machines for sealing the cans. It sells to the other company at a discount of 20% below the announced standard prices at which it sells cans of the same kind to the petitioner; it charges the petitioner a fixed rental for the machines, but furnishes them to the other company free, and it discriminates in other respects. The effect of the discrimination is to substantially lessen competition, and its tendency is to create a monopoly in the line of interstate commerce in which petitioner and the other company are competitively engaged.
Held, that the discrimination violates § 2 of the Clayton Act, which denounces price discrimination between different purchasers
where its effect my be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly "in any line of [interstate] commerce." P. 278 U. S. 253.
2. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, its meaning is not to be varied by resort to reports of congressional committees or other matters dehors. Id.
3. Exceptions to this general rule are rare, and deal with provision which, literally applied, would offend the moral sense, involve injustice, oppression, or absurdity, or lead to an unreasonable result plainly at variance with the policy of the statute as a whole. Id.
Response to questions certified by the circuit court of appeals touching a case in which the district court dismissed a bill to enjoin violations of the Clayton Act.