Uniroyal, Inc. v. Hoff and Thames, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
511 F. Supp. 1060 (1981)
- Written by John Reeves, JD
Facts
Hoff and Thames, Inc., d/b/a Case Tire and Supply Company (Case) (plaintiff), was in the business of buying tires for resale. One of its competitors was Otasco. Both Case and Otasco purchased tires from Uniroyal, Inc. (defendant). Otasco was much larger than Case and operated similarly to a wholesaler. Otasco would purchase tires from Uniroyal in bulk, store them in warehouses, and oversee distribution of them to its local dealers. Case, by contrast, did not have as large of a distribution. Case brought suit against Uniroyal under the Robinson-Patman Act, alleging that Uniroyal engaged in price discrimination by selling its tires to Otasco for a price lower than the price it gave to Case. Uniroyal, in response, argued that the price differential was justified as a cost-saving measure. Because Otasco was a larger company with a larger shipping and distribution system, Uniroyal did not incur nearly the amount of costs associated with shipping tires that Otasco purchased, because Otasco was able handle such matters itself. Case, by contrast, did not have such a shipping infrastructure. Uniroyal maintained that, in light of this, the reduction in the price for tires sold to Otasco made sense as a cost-saving measure. Both Uniroyal and Case filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nixon, 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.