Vulcaneer wrote:
rockportrocket wrote:
Price discrimination occurs when a business charges a different price to different groups of consumers for the same good or service, for reasons not associated with costs.
If for instance Ford has their oil change special on for 20 bucks, and they then give a 10% discount if you bought you car there, they would be guilty. If you can prove you paid 10% more for the exact same service , you have a case. I don't care what wpo says.
If for instance Ford has their oil change special on for 20 bucks, and they then give a 10% discount if you bought you car there, they would be guilty.
I don't think so. That dealers customers are one set of customer group. His non customers are in a different group.
If you are referring to the Robinson-Patman act, this also regards sales to distributors that cross state lines. And in the interest to create a monopoly.
Besides that it's going to take a lot more than that to initiate an anti-trust lawsuit. Even if you somehow do prevail, what do you expect the punitive reward to be for all the plaintiff's. Then tell me if it was worth it.
Bottom line...it's a NON-issue. Whether right or wrong. You are better off forgetting about it and getting on with your life. If you don't like a company's policy...go somewhere else. It is a public policy. They are not hiding it. They are publicly announcing their preferred customer group. They are not guilty.
rockportrocket wrote:
Vulcaneer, you are correct, it is against the law to charge one customer one price, then another a different price for the same services. The Pitman act alone states that in the supreme court case. Again you are correct that in the act of whether the return on risk for the lawsuit is minor compared to the cost.
I will state again, what the OP said is illegal, if taken to court.
Note to WPO, I made pretty good living for 40 years as an attorney, I don't try to tell you how to run a rv park and you should do the same.
Not sure the relevance between the Pitman Act and the
Robinson-Patman Act, that I linked previously. Nor how the Pitman Act relates to this discussion. Maybe you can help clarify that for us. Or do we need to send you a healthy retainer before we can get that information from such an experienced high "valued" attorney. Not that I care all that much. But that is the problem with info from the internet, by all us self proclaimed pseudo experts.
