as well as competition some remedy should be made available to those injured by such behavior. Consequently, the greater the narrowing of the statute's coverage, the stronger becomes the case for maintaining some form of private damage action. Conversely, if it is felt that the Act's coverage should remain broad, then the scope of private remedies must be decreased in order to reduce the current ability of private plaintiffs to engage in litigation intended to eliminate legitimately competitive pricing behavior. The need today is for pragmatism in dealing with the burdens which the Robinson-Patman Act has imposed on the competitive process, This Report represents our best effort to achieve this result and to formulate responsive remedies. Appendix A: PROJECT STAFF The Report was prepared in the Department of Justice during the tenures of Assistant Attorneys General Thomas E. Kauper and Donald I. Baker by Antitrust Division attorneys Richard 0. Levine and A. Theodore Gardiner III, under the immediate supervision of Donald L. Flexner, Acting Chief of the Division's Regulated Industries Section and the overall guidance of Jonathan C. Rose, Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Also contributing to the preparation and analysis of the Report were Appendix B: THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT Section 2 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered: Provided, however, That the Federal Trade Commission may, after due investigation and hearing to all interested parties, fix and establish quantity limits, and revise the same as it finds necessary, as to particular commodities or classes of commodities, where it finds that available purchasers in greater quantities are so few as to render differentials on account thereof unjustly discriminatory or promotive of monopoly in any line of commerce; and the foregoing shall then not be construed to permit differentials based on differences in quantities greater than those so fixed and established: And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent price changes from time to time where in response to changing conditions affecting the market for or the marketability of the goods concerned, such as but not limited to actual or imminent deterioration of perishable goods, obsolescence of seasonal goods, distress sales under court process, or sales in good faith in discontinuance of business in the goods concerned. (b) Upon proof being made, at any hearing on a complaint under this section, that there has been discrimination in price or services or facilities furnished, the burden of rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing justification shall be upon the person charged with a violation of this section, and unless justification shall be affirmatively shown, the Commission is authorized to issue an order terminating the discrimination: Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall prevent a seller rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing that his lower price or the furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser or purchasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor, or the services or |