shorthorn said:
[You can't prove me wrong or we wouldn't be in this peeing contest.
Peeing contest now thats funny! :lol: :lol: I dont care who u r ![/quote]
Agman, SH, Shorthorn, and Shorty; Be careful not to pee in the wind.
The Robinson-Patman stab in the brief by the appellate court was used incorrectly. As to your "provide the proof" challenge, read the Robinson-Patman Act to see the reasoned approach to this topic.
"TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 13 Prev | Next
§ 13. Discrimination in price, services, or facilities
........
(b) Burden of rebutting prima-facie case of discrimination
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 facilities furnished by a competitor. "
A prima facia case was made to and accepted by the jury. The burden of proof on refutation rests on Tyson.
These words have to do with a monopolist. A monopsonist or oligopsonist (one or few buyers) is on the other side of the equation and the economic reasoning instead of one or few sellers. The economic reasoning would be that an absolute defense would be for buyers to show that they were paying a higher price to meet an equally higher price offered by a competitor. There was no price determination set by "captive supplies" as their pricing was set by the cash market instead of competition. This was the key to the riddle. Is this getting over your head? The brief filed by the appeals court proved it was over their head. They have no ability to trump a jury on Daubert issues when they fall in their own reasoned trap. Of course they did not trump the jury on the Daubert issues, they just brought them up for arguments supporting their position. Thus, their own ruling brings up serious judicial issues of influence behind closed doors. Americans deserve better than that. Let the light shine in.