Summary
affirming directed verdict on ground that plaintiff failed to prove it was in competition with favored customers
Summary of this case from Adcom, Inc. v. Nokia, Corp.Opinion
No. 76-2647.
August 3, 1977. Rehearing Denied September 6, 1977.
Claude B. Arrington, Douglass B. Shivers, Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
Kevin E. Grady, John C. Butters, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Before JONES, COLEMAN and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
In the present Robinson-Patman Act case, the plaintiff appeals the lower court's granting of a directed verdict at the close of its case on the ground that there was no substantial evidence of any price discrimination between competitors in comparable transactions and no proof of any actual damages. A review of the record reveals that the plaintiff did in fact fail to prove it was in competition with defendant's more favored customers, and consequently the motion for a directed verdict was properly granted. See M. C. Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Texas Foundries, Inc., 517 F.2d 1059, 1066 (5th Cir. 1975).
15 U.S.C. §§ 13- 13b, 21a (1970).
AFFIRMED.