Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply Company

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

In THE Marrer or HECKETHORN MANUFACTURING & SUPPLY COMPANY CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2(8)-OF THE CLAYTON -ACT Docket 7499. Complaint, May 21, 1959—Decision, Apr. 14, 1960 Consent order requiring manufacturers in Dyersburg, Tenn., to cease discriminating in price in violation of Sec. 2(a) of the Clayton Act, by selling its automotive shock absorbers, seat cushions and other products to some purchasers at lower prices than to their competitors. CoMPLAINY The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the party respondent. named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly designated and described, has violated the provisions of subsection (a) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act (U.S.C.A. Title 15, Section 13) as amended, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges as follows:

Paracrary 1. The Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply Com- HECKETHORN MANUFACTURING & SUPPLY CO. 1229 1228 Complaint.

pany, hereinafter called respondent, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado, with its principal office and place of business located in Dyersburg, Tennessee. Its mailing address is P.O. Box 117, Dyersburg, Tennessee.

Par. 2. Respondent is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and distributing automobile shock absorbers and seat cushions and other products. Respondent's sales of shock absorbers are largely made by its Columbus Shock Absorber Division to various purchasers for use, consumption or resale within the United States. A substantial volume of such products are sold and distributed by manufacturer’s representatives throughout the United States. In addition, respondent exports a substantial volume of its products.

Par. 8. In the course of its business, as aforesaid, respondent is now, and for several years last past. has been, continuously engaged in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Clayton Act, in that respondent has sold and distributed its automotive shock absorbers, seat. cushions and other products, from its plant in Tennessee to various wholesale and retail buyers located in various other states of the United States and the District of Columbia. Par. 4. In the course of conducting its business in commerce, respondent has been and is now in substantial competition with other individuals, corporations and firms engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and distributing comparable automotive shock absorbers, seat cushions and other products in commerce between and among the various states of the United States and the District of Columbia.

Par. 5. In the course of conducting its business in commerce, respondent has sold its automotive shock absorbers, cushions and other products to various purchasers who competed, directly or indirectly, each with the other.

Par. 6. In the course and conduct of its business, as hereinabove described, the respondent has, directly or indirectly, discriminated in price between different purchasers of its automotive shock absorbers, seat cushions and other products, by selling said products to some of its purchasers at lower prices than such products of lke grade and quality were sold at or near the same time to other purchasers, some of whom were in active competition with the aforesaid favored purchasers.

Pan. 7. The effect of respondent’s discriminations in price between the different purchasers of its automotive shock absorbers, seat cushions and other products of like grade and quality, as hereinabove Decision 56 F.T.C.

described, may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in the lines of commerce in which respondent and the aforesaid favored purchasers are engaged, or to injure, destroy or prevent competition among and between said favored and unfavored purchasers, or with customers of either of them. Par. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondent constitute violations of the provisions of subsection (a) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act (U.S.C., Title 15, Sec. 18), as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, approved June 19, 1986. Mr. John T. Walker and Mr. James H. Kelley for the Commission.

Ewell and Ewell, of Dyersburg, Tenn., and Afr. James A. Horton, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Iniriau Decision spy Warrer R. Jonnson, Hearine EXAMINER In the complaint dated May 21, 1959, the respondent is charged with violating the provisions of subsection (a) of section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended.

On February 1, 1960, the respondent and its attorneys entered into an agreement with counsel in support of the complaint for a consent order.

Under the foregoing agreement, the respondent admits the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint. The parties agree, among other things, that the cease and desist order there set forth may be entered without further notice and have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and the document includes a waiver by the respondent of all rights to challenge or contest the validity of the order issuing in accordance therewith. The agreement further recites that it is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that it has violated the Jaw as alleged in the complaint.

The hearing examiner finds that the content of the agreement meets all of the requirements of Section 3.25(b) of the Rules of the Commission.

The complaint insofar as concerns the allegation of “primary line injury,” namely, a substantial lessening of competition and tendency toward monopoly in the line of commerce in which the respondent is engaged should be dismissed on the grounds that the evidence in the light of subsequent developments is insufficient to substantiate that allegation.

The hearing examiner being of the opinion that the agreement and the proposed order provide an appropriate basis for disposi- HECKETHORN MANUFACTURING & SUPPLY CO. 1231 1228 Decision tion of this proceeding as to all of the parties, the agreement is hereby accepted and it is ordered that the agreement shall not become a part of the official record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission. The following jurisdictional findings are made and the following order issued, 1. Respondent Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado, with its office and principal place of business located at Highway No. 20, Dyersburg, Tennessee (erroneously listed in the complaint as P.O. Box 117, Dyersburg, Tennessee).

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered, That respondent Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply Company, a corporation, and its officers, representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in, or in connection with, the sale of automotive shock absorbers, seat cushions and other automotive parts and accessories in commerce, 2s commerce is defined in the Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from discriminating, directly or indirectly, in the price of such products of like grade and quality by selling to any one purchaser at net. prices lower than the net prices charged to any other purchaser who, in fact, competes with the purchaser paying the lower price in the resale or distribution of respondent’s products. It is further ordered, That the allegation of a substantial lessening of competition or tendency toward monopoly in the line of commerce in which the respondent is engaged be dismissed. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 8.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 14th day of April, 1960, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

It is ordered, That respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the order to cease and desist. 1232 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’ DECISIONS, Complaint 56 E.T.C.