Thomasville Chair Company

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

IN THE j\1A'IR OF THOMASVILLE CHAIR COMPANY ORDER, ETC., I REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOIJ.ATIO OF SEC. 2(c) OF 'THE CLAYTON ACT Docket 7273. Comp a,int, Oct. 1958-Decisiq)). Oct. , 1963 C. 441, afterOrder dismissing cease and desist order of ::larch 15, 1961. 58 F. remand by Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 306 F. 2d 541, 7 S.&D. 515, com. plaint c1Hng-ing- a manufacturer of household furniture with discriminating in pri.re in violation of Sec. 2(c) of the Clayton Act. ORDER DIS?lIISSIXG CO:-IPLAIXT The United States Court of A ppcals for the Fifth Circuit having, on August 14, 1962, entered its judgment setting aside the Commis- EARL SCHEIB , L"'C. , ET AL. 1049 1048 Oomplaint sian s order to cease and desist and remanding the matter to the Commission for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion of the same date, and the Commission after full consideration having determined that the complaint should be dismissed for the reasons stated in an accompanying memorandum; It is ordered That the Commission s complaint be, and it hereby , dismissed.

l\IE::IOHAKDUlI ACCO)IPANYING FINAL Order By tlw Oom.?nt8sion:

This matter is before the Commission upon remand from the United Stetes Court of AppeaJs for the Fifth Circuit. read the Court of Appeals' decision as holding that the Commission a case in which it is aneged that a sener has violated Section 2(c) of the Clayton Act by passing on a reduction in brokerage to favored buyer in the form of a discriminatory price reduction may not rely solely on the fact that the sener has paid Jess brokerage on the sales at the lower price, but must establish a causal relationship bet.ween the reduced brokerage fllcl the reduced sales price. The Commission does not, however, acquiesce in the. opinion of the Court of Appeals as such, which contains dicta with which the Commission does not necessarily agree. Since the Commission does not believe that the public interest would be advanced bv a further proceeding to establish whether respondent has violated Section 2 (c), the complaint must be dismissed.