pnichols wrote:
Vulcaneer wrote:
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.
I'll go out on limb here and add the any laws on the books regarding charging customers different amounts for the same services or products is probably/most likely addressing the legality of charging individuals different amounts versus the legality of charging classes of individuals different amounts.
What the OP was referring to is a whole class of individuals being able to pay a different amount for the same services or products - which makes logical sense (that is, if the law is ever logical) for this kind of practice to be legal ... In My Non-Legal Humble Opinion, of course.
What Vulcaneer is referring to is legislation that makes it illegal for a manufacturer or distributor to offer one price to a preferred distributor and another price to others "in the interest of creating a Monopoly". Both conditions must be met. The best example is Ford or GM cannot offer their cars to a preferred dealer group (say Auto Nation) at a lower price than their other franchisees IF their intent is to run all the other dealers out of business so that Auto Nation eventually will have a monopoly selling Chevys or Fords. They can offer that same group incentives and discounts if they are not designed to create unfair trade. It must also cross state lines, hence be interstate, not intrastate, commerce, so it falls under federal jurisdiction.
