~SH~ said:Tex,
Haha! As expected, Tex dodges another bullet with a volley of statements to avoid answering the question.
You're a dandy Tex. Laws are subject to intent and interpretation and that is not for you to interpret but rather for judges who place common sense and understanding of the intent of the law ahead of a need to blame.
Tex: "The law is pretty clear, SH, that packers can not discriminate in pricing for cattle of same quality."
That's right Tex, the law is pretty clear. There can be no price discrimination when feeders have so many marketing options available to them and nobody is forced to sell under any particular market. A fact that you cannot refute and continue to divert. There can be no price discrimination when the cash market can be higher than the grid pricing market it follows for as many times as it is lower. Another fact you cannot refute and continue to divert.
Here is something else that you cannot refute that is glaringly obvious. If feeders are being taken advantage of, why was this case not carried by many feeders instead of salebarn managers who have proclaimed themselves industry messiahs and a packer blaming feeder that can't tell the truth even when under oath? Do the salebarn managers really believe that the feeding industry needs them to save them from themselves?
~SH~
SH, the packers made up the grid pricing and based it on the cash market. When the grid takes up all of the supply, the cash market, which set the grid market pricing was thinned and subject to manipulation. The litigants proved it to the jury and the poor 80 something year old judge didn't know enough about economics to see the problem. He could not even read the law plainly but had to read his own interpretation of economics, which was not a learned interpretation at all in the field of economics, as a substitute for the jury's decision. Juries are the determinants of fact, not judges. This judge went above the power of our democracy gives judges and dismissed the jury's judgment. We now have an elite group of judges who claim the right to determine truth on their own without the input the founders of our country gave to the common citizen sitting on the jury. The appeals court in the 11th circuit then quoted themselves on making a new qualifier to make a claim under the Packers and Stockyards Act that was not ever there nor in the plain reading of the law.
Yes, the packers made the grid pricing system that offered the ability to thin the price setting cash market and then they discriminated against it. They had a portion of the market that could not set grid prices (the grid prices themselves) which depended only on the cash market for direction. They set it up that way but there were many other ways to set up grid pricing that did not discriminate against the price setting mechanism for the market. That is what the 14 day rule was made up to prevent. No, when given a choi8ce between bad and worse, you don't necessarily have to chose bad or worse. You can make your claim under the law that you are treated no worse than the other market participants or have a claim under the PSA for damages. That is exactly the deceptive device that was prohibited under the act. These are not new things, just old things repackaged.
Your convoluted reasoning is no excuse for dismissing laws prohibiting certain actions.
Tex