Sandhusker
Well-known member
A response to the arguement that PSA was created to addess competition between packers and not the packer\producer relationship;
Clear epressions of Congressional intent, the manifest scheme of the Act on it's face, and certain judicial decisions indicate tht the PSA is, inter alie, a remedial statute designed to address unfair business behavior, not just promote the efficiency objectives of antitrust laws. Yet, the Eleventh Circuit construed the Act to require that a plaintiff must demonstrate that a business practice is absolutely anti-competitive in order to establish a violation. This undermines the statute's objectives.
Here's what Congress (the outfit that wrote the law) said in 1958;
"The Packers and Stockyards Act was enacted by Congress in 1921. The primary purpose of this Act is to assure fair competition and fair trade practices in livestock marketing and in the meatpacking industry. The objective is to safeguard farmers and ranchers against receiving less than the true market value of their livestock and to prodect consumers against unfair business practices in the marketing of meats, poultry, etc. Protection is alo provided to members of the livestock marketing and meat insdustries from unfair, deceptive, unjustly discriminatory, and monopolistic practices of competitors, large or small" Emphasis added
"The Act provides that meatpackers subject to it's provisions shall not engage in practices that restrain commere or creae monopoly. They are prohibited from buying or selling any article for the purpose of or with the effect of manipulating or contrilling prces in commerce. Emphasis added
Now, comments from courts in earlier rulings; The Supreme Court said, "The Act forbids packers to engage in unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practices in such commerce, or to subject any person to unreasonable prejudice therein, or do do any of a number of acts to congrol prices or establish a monopoly....Emphasis added
The Ninth court said PSA, "Was not intended merely to prevent monopolistic practices, but also to protect the livestock market fom unfair and deceptive business tactics." " The Act does not specify that a 'competitive injury' or a 'lessening of competition' or a 'tendency to monopoly' be proved in order to show a violation of the statutory language." "The act is remedial legislation and is to be construed liberally in accourd with it's purpose to prevent economic harm to producers and comsumers at the expense of middlemen" Emphasis added
The Eighth court said, "The purpose of the Act is to assure fair trade practices in the livestock marketing and meat-packing industry in order to safeguard farmers and ranchers against rceiving less than the true market value of their livestock"
You packer hacks want to take a cut at this?
Clear epressions of Congressional intent, the manifest scheme of the Act on it's face, and certain judicial decisions indicate tht the PSA is, inter alie, a remedial statute designed to address unfair business behavior, not just promote the efficiency objectives of antitrust laws. Yet, the Eleventh Circuit construed the Act to require that a plaintiff must demonstrate that a business practice is absolutely anti-competitive in order to establish a violation. This undermines the statute's objectives.
Here's what Congress (the outfit that wrote the law) said in 1958;
"The Packers and Stockyards Act was enacted by Congress in 1921. The primary purpose of this Act is to assure fair competition and fair trade practices in livestock marketing and in the meatpacking industry. The objective is to safeguard farmers and ranchers against receiving less than the true market value of their livestock and to prodect consumers against unfair business practices in the marketing of meats, poultry, etc. Protection is alo provided to members of the livestock marketing and meat insdustries from unfair, deceptive, unjustly discriminatory, and monopolistic practices of competitors, large or small" Emphasis added
"The Act provides that meatpackers subject to it's provisions shall not engage in practices that restrain commere or creae monopoly. They are prohibited from buying or selling any article for the purpose of or with the effect of manipulating or contrilling prces in commerce. Emphasis added
Now, comments from courts in earlier rulings; The Supreme Court said, "The Act forbids packers to engage in unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practices in such commerce, or to subject any person to unreasonable prejudice therein, or do do any of a number of acts to congrol prices or establish a monopoly....Emphasis added
The Ninth court said PSA, "Was not intended merely to prevent monopolistic practices, but also to protect the livestock market fom unfair and deceptive business tactics." " The Act does not specify that a 'competitive injury' or a 'lessening of competition' or a 'tendency to monopoly' be proved in order to show a violation of the statutory language." "The act is remedial legislation and is to be construed liberally in accourd with it's purpose to prevent economic harm to producers and comsumers at the expense of middlemen" Emphasis added
The Eighth court said, "The purpose of the Act is to assure fair trade practices in the livestock marketing and meat-packing industry in order to safeguard farmers and ranchers against rceiving less than the true market value of their livestock"
You packer hacks want to take a cut at this?
