Conoco Inc. v. Inman Oil Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit
774 F.2d 895 (1985)
- Written by John Reeves, JD
Facts
Conoco Inc. (plaintiff) sold petroleum products in two separate ways—directly to commercial users, and indirectly through distributors and jobbers. Inman Oil Co. (Inman) (defendant) was one of Conoco’s jobbers. Over the course of several years, Conoco solicited commercial users for direct sales of its petroleum products that had, up to that point, purchased Conoco products through Inman as a jobber for Conoco. Conoco set a price for its products for direct sale to these potential customers at a level lower than that set by Inman as a jobber to the same customers. This led to Inman losing many of its customers to Conoco. It was undisputed that Conoco’s lower prices resulted from it not being a jobber in the first place. Inman, by contrast, in order to make a profit in its capacity as a jobber for Conoco, had to sell its products at a price higher than what it had paid to purchase them from Conoco. Conoco brought suit against Inman to recover unpaid money, and Inman counterclaimed, alleging that Conoco had engaged in unlawful price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act. Conoco argued it could not be liable for price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act, because there had been no injury to competition. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of Conoco. Inman appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nichol, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.