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/360/55/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/360/55/case.html
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
Syllabus
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.
