Trade Practices and Antitrust Regulation

ORS 646.050
Establishing prima facie case of discrimination


Establishing prima facie case of discrimination; justification of discrimination. Upon proof being made, in any suit or other proceeding in which any violation of ORS 646.010 (Designation and scope of ORS 646.010 to 646.180) to 646.180 (Illegal contracts) is at issue, that there has been discrimination in price, or in services or facilities furnished, or in payment for services or facilities rendered or to be rendered, the burden of rebutting the prima facie case thus made by showing justification is upon the person charged with the violation; but this section does not prevent a seller rebutting the prima facie case so made by showing that the lower price of the seller, or the payment for or furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser or purchasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor or the services or facilities furnished by a competitor.

Notes of Decisions

In action between competitors in Ready-Mix concrete industry, allegations of complaint that defendants engaged in "geographic" price discrimination were not proved. Redmond Ready-Mix Inc. v. Coats, 283 Or 101, 582 P2d 1340 (1978)

§§ 646.010 to 646.180

Notes of Decisions

These sections were modeled after Robinson-Patman amendment to Clayton Act and federal cases interpreting federal statutes are persuasive in their interpretation. Redmond Ready-Mix, Inc. v. Coats, 283 Or 101, 582 P2d 1340 (1978)

Price discrimination under Oregon Anti-Price Discrimination Law may include buy-back of obsolete inventory and difference in credit terms available to competing dealers. Forster v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., 73 Or App 439, 698 P2d 1001 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

"Kickbacks" on school photographer contracts, (1974) Vol 37, p 49

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 341-354, 408 (1972)

Chapter 646

Notes of Decisions

Subject matter regulated by this chapter is not "preempted" by Federal Robinson-Patman Act so as to render this chapter invalid. W. J. Seufert v. Nat. Restaurant Supply Co., 266 Or 92, 511 P2d 363 (1973)

Whether an injunction should issue when a court finds a violation of the Act is a matter of discretion. State ex rel Johnson v. International Harvester Co., 25 Or App 9, 548 P2d 176 (1976)

This chapter imposes no affirmative duty to inform customers of rates in absence of request, but prohibits making information about prices available to some customers and not others. Wildish Sand & Gravel v. Northwest Natural Gas Co., 103 Or App 215, 796 P2d 1237 (1990), Sup Ct review denied


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021