Abstract
We take an economic perspective to analyze the recurring criticisms of the Robinson-Patman Act as being anticompetitive or inefficient. We determine that the legislative history of the Act identifies economically rational objectives that are consistent with the efficiency concerns of so-called modern antitrust law. Further, we reject (as unnecessary and inconsistent with the Act’s clear goals and legislative intent) recent attempts to narrow the Act’s applications through judicial interpretation of provisions such as the cost justification defense, the “like grade and quality” requirement, and the competitive injury element.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
