The Robinson-Patman Paradox

Two additional macro trends in antitrust law need to be considered. First, in 1936, at a time many consider to be one of the worst years of The Great Depression, Congress passed what is known as the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Law (R-P Act). Although enacted as part and parcel of the package of federal antitrust laws, the R-P Act had, as a stated goal price, uniformity. On its surface, the R-P Act made eminent good sense with certain exceptions, all buyers from a single manufacturer should pay the same price for the goods they bought. One of the stated purposes of the R-P Act is to protect Ma & Pa retailers (particularly local food markets) from the ravages of the chain stores buying power, and particularly the ravages of what was then considered the most rapacious chain store, A&P. The difficulties, however, were (a) that price uniformity is inconsistent with the Sherman Acts price flexibility goals which are designed to encourage reduced prices; and (b) the R-P Act is a model of poor draftsmanship. ^[66] As a result, R-P Act enforcement has been sporadic at best.

^[66] A discussion describing the examples of poor draftsmanship of the R-P Act is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say, both the defenders of the R-P Act as well as its detractors agree that the Act is internally inconsistent.