Connection lost
Server error
GREAT A&P TEA CO. v. FTC Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A large grocery chain (A&P) induced a lower price from a supplier (Borden) by stating a competitor’s bid was much better. The Court held A&P was not liable for receiving a discriminatory price because Borden had a valid good-faith “meeting-competition” defense.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that buyer liability for price discrimination under Robinson-Patman Act § 2(f) is derivative of seller liability. A buyer cannot be liable if the seller has a valid affirmative defense, such as meeting competition in good faith.
GREAT A&P TEA CO. v. FTC Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (A&P), seeking cost savings, decided to switch from brand-label to private-label milk. It solicited a bid from its longtime supplier, Borden Co. Dissatisfied with Borden’s initial offer, A&P solicited a bid from a competitor, Bowman Dairy, which submitted a lower offer. A&P’s buyer then informed Borden’s representative that Borden was “not even in the ball park” and that a $50,000 improvement “would not be a drop in the bucket.” A&P refused to disclose the details of Bowman’s bid. Fearing the loss of a major account, Borden submitted a new bid that doubled its initial offered savings to A&P. A&P accepted this second bid, knowing it was substantially better than Bowman’s offer. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged A&P with violating § 2(f) of the Robinson-Patman Act by knowingly inducing an illegal price discrimination. The FTC and the Court of Appeals found for the FTC, reasoning that A&P could not assert a meeting-competition defense because it knew Borden’s bid had beaten, not just met, the competition.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a buyer be held liable under § 2(f) of the Robinson-Patman Act for knowingly receiving a discriminatory price if the seller has a valid meeting-competition defense under § 2(b)?
No. The Court reversed the judgment against A&P. A buyer’s liability under Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cil
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can a buyer be held liable under § 2(f) of the Robinson-Patman Act for knowingly receiving a discriminatory price if the seller has a valid meeting-competition defense under § 2(b)?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies the principle that buyer liability under the Robinson-Patman Act Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam
Legal Rule
A buyer cannot be liable under § 2(f) of the Clayton Act, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident,
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the plain language of § 2(f), which Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consect
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Buyer liability under Robinson-Patman Act § 2(f) is derivative of seller