## Facts

- Clyde A. Perkins operated as an independent gasoline and oil wholesaler and retailer in Washington and Oregon, including storage, trucking, and Perkins-branded service stations.
- From 1945 to 1957, Perkins bought substantially all of his gasoline from Standard Oil Company of California.
- Between 1955 and 1957, Standard charged Perkins higher prices than it charged (1) Standard’s branded dealers that competed with Perkins and (2) Signal Oil & Gas Co., a wholesaler.
- Signal sold to its subsidiary Western Hyway, which sold to its subsidiary Regal Stations Co., a retail competitor of Perkins; the lower price was passed through the chain and enabled Regal to undersell Perkins.
- Standard admitted selling to its branded dealers and to Signal at discriminatorily lower prices than those charged to Perkins.
- Perkins alleged the discrimination impaired his ability to compete and contributed to the forced sale of his business in 1957.
- A jury found for Perkins in a private antitrust action seeking treble damages under § 2(a) of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act and awarded damages later trebled with fees.
- The court of appeals ordered a new trial, concluding that damages tied to Regal were too remote because they arose through multiple intermediary levels and suggesting certain claimed losses (e.g., unpaid brokerage, rents, and intercompany debts) were too incidental.

## Issues

1. Whether § 2(a) applies when a discriminatory price is given to a purchaser at a different distribution level and the advantage is passed through intermediaries to a downstream competitor of the disfavored purchaser.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a finding that Standard’s discriminatory pricing caused Perkins’ competitive injury and business losses.
3. Whether a plaintiff who is the primary target of discrimination may submit for jury consideration business-related losses involving closely held corporate entities and intercompany obligations, or whether such losses are legally too incidental or remote.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict and judgment for Perkins.
- Section 2(a) covered Standard’s discriminatory pricing even though the product moved through additional intermediaries before reaching Perkins’ retail competitor.
- The evidence permitted a jury finding of a causal connection between Standard’s discrimination and Perkins’ business injury.
- As the principal victim of the discrimination, Perkins was entitled to present evidence of all his losses to the jury; the court of appeals erred by treating certain categories of loss as categorically unrecoverable and by requiring a new trial on that basis.

## Legal Principles

- Robinson-Patman Act § 2(a) is not limited to discriminatory sales occurring at the same distribution level; coverage may extend where the favored price is passed through intermediaries and threatens competitive injury to a disfavored purchaser.
- The presence of multiple steps or affiliated entities in the distribution chain does not, by itself, break statutory coverage or defeat causation where evidence supports pass-through and competitive harm.
- Where the plaintiff is the primary injured competitor from unlawful price discrimination, recoverable damages may include business-related losses tied to the plaintiff’s competitive operations, including losses reflected through closely held corporations and intercompany obligations, if supported by proof and causally linked.
- Assessment and apportionment of proven damages in a complex commercial setting is generally for the jury; appellate courts should not exclude broad categories of losses as “incidental” when they are part of the plaintiff’s claimed competitive injury and were tried to a verdict.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Robinson-Patman § 2(a) reaches discriminatory pricing that injures competition even when the favored price is transmitted through intermediaries to a downstream competitor, and it reinstated the jury’s treble-damages judgment after concluding Perkins showed sufficient causation and could seek recovery for all proven losses as the primary victim of the discrimination.


Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 395 U.S. 642 (1969)