Page images
PDF
EPUB

by injunction in the name of the State, as in case of violation of other antitrust legislation of the State, and each day's operations shall constitute a separate offense. (Id)

Sec. 4814. Liquidated damages.-Any person, natural or artificial, being injured or damaged by a violation of the provisions of second preceding section, whether said damages be direct or indirect, may recover as liquidated damages in any appropriate action or suit in the circuit or chancery courts, the sum of $100.00 per bale for the first five bales, and the sum of $10.00 for each successive bale thereafter ginned a day by the unlawful combination in competition with the plaintiff and any person, natural or artificial, being injured by said unlawful combination, may have the relief of injunction in any appropriate proceeding in addition to the recovery of said damages, and each day's operations shall constitute a separate offense. (Id.) 2

'See MARKETING LAWS SURVEY vol. State Antitrust Laws; Special Antitrust Laws, Special Industry Antitrust Acts.

MISSOURI

REGULATION OF PRICE COMPETITION

A. RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE

No provisions.1

B. PROHIBITION OF SALES BELOW COST

No provisions.

C. ANTIDISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION

1. General Prohibitory Laws

Stat. Ann. (1932), c. 47

Sec. 8717. Unfair discrimination.-Any person, firm, company, association, or corporation, foreign or domestic, doing business in the State of Missouri and engaged in the production, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution of any commodity or article of commerce in general use, that intentionally, for the purpose of destroying the competition of any regular, established dealer of such commodity, or to prevent the competition of any person, who in good faith intends and attempts to become such dealer, shall discriminate between different sections, localities, communities, cities, or towns

'A manufacturer offered rebates to a dealer on a purchase price of plaintiff's trade-marked spool cotton if defendant sold a given quantity of this article in 6 months and strictly maintained the trade price established by the manufacturer. In a common-law action by the plaintiff for the price of goods sold, defendant counter-claimed for a rebate alleged to have been due to him under this agreement. In answer to plaintiff's allegation that the defendant had not maintained the trade price established, the defendant stated that the commodities sold at lower prices had been purchased, not from plaintiff but from other dealers. The court gave judgment to the plaintiff. In a dictum it was stated that the defendant was bound by the prices fixed, even as to the commodities purchased from other dealers. The court further stated that there was "no force" in the contention that the contract was void as in restraint of trade. Clark v. Frank, 17 Mo App. 602 (1885).

210235°-40-vol. 2—16

171

of this State, by purchasing such commodity or article at a higher price or rate in one section, locality, community, city, or town, than is paid for the same commodity or article by the said person, firm, company, association, or corporation, in another section, locality, community, city, or town; or by selling such commodity or article in one section, locality, community, city, or town at a lower price or rate than such commodity or article is sold for by said person, firm, company, association, or corporation in another section, locality, community, city, or town, after making due allowance for the difference, if any, in the grade or quality and in the actual cost of transportation from the point of purchase to the point of manufacture or storage, or from the point of production, manufacture, or storage to the place of sale or distribution, or by giving or paying or promising to give or pay a secret or private rebate or bonus in connection with the purchase, sale, or distribution of any commodity or article of commerce, shall be deemed guilty of unfair discrimination which is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful. (R. S. 1919, sec. 9672.) 2

2. Special Prohibitory Laws

Stat. Ann. (1932), c. 47
Dairy Products

Sec. 8725. Deemed guilty of unfair discrimination, when.3-Any person, firm, company, association, or corporation, foreign or domestic, doing business in the State of Missouri and engaged in the business of buying milk, cream, butterfat, butter, poultry, and eggs, for the purpose of manufacture, sale, or storage, that, for the purpose of destroying or injuring the business of a competitor, shall discriminate between different sections, localities, communities, cities, or towns of this State by purchasing such commodity or commodities at a higher price or rate in one section, locality, community, city, or town than is paid for the same commodity by such person, firm, company, association, or corporation in another section, locality,

For procedural and penal provisions, see vol. State Antitrust Laws: General Antitrust Laws.

3 Where a corporation engaged in the business of purchasing eggs established a 10 percent higher price in one locality than in another locality, these facts were held not to show an intent on the part of the defendant to suppress competition, since the purpose of these different prices was to increase the business of the defendant and was a normal business transaction. State Ex. Inf. McAllister v. Blattner Bros., Mo. 226 S. W. 253 (1920).

The attorney general having found that a corporation had been guilty of a violation of this statute can bring quo warranto proceedings, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant had not been convicted of unlawful discrimination. Ibid.

community, city, or town, after making due allowance for the difference, if any, in the grade or quality of such commodity, and in the actual cost of transportation from the point of purchase to the point of manufacture, sale, or storage; together with the actual expenses of labor, storage, or rent in purchasing the same at point of purchase, shall be deemed guilty of unfair discrimination, which is hereby prohibited and declared to be unlawful: Provided, That the fact that any person, firm, company, association, or corporation purchases any of above-mentioned commodities at a higher price or rate in the one section, locality, community, city, or town than is paid at the time for the same commodity by the same person, firm, company, association, or corporation in another section, locality, community, city, or town, after making due allowance for the difference, if any, in the grade or quality and in the actual cost of transportation from the point of purchase to the point of manufacture, sale, or storage, shall be prima facie evidence that such higher price or rate was paid for the purpose of destroying or injuring the business of a competitor, and that such person, firm, company, association, or corporation is guilty of unfair discrimination. (Laws 1921, p. 287, sec. 1.)

« PreviousContinue »