This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Phillips, the respondent contends that Volvo’s “Volvo Vision” policy systematically discriminated against its dealership, causing a sharp decline in sales and profits.
According to Phillips, a jury found in favor of the respondent on these issues.
The case record notes that the respondent’s major customer, New Hi‑Way, which accounted for 82 % of its business, was purchased by a Memphis company.
The case was submitted to the Court.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Stevens asked whether each party had been a purchaser over a long period.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned what evidence existed of competition between the parties.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens inquired whether there was proof of damages or injury to competition.
Justice Stevens asked whether a contract guaranteeing equal concessions existed and if it was breached.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Respondent Position
The respondent argues that price discrimination does not occur when there is competition, so the Act’s requirements are not met.
According to Phillips, the respondent provides examples, stating they have thousands of instances supporting their claim.
According to Phillips, the respondent asserts that a jury found in its favor on these issues.
According to Mr. Phillips, the respondent contends that its future ability to compete is impaired.
What happened at oral argument
Petitioner was represented by Roy T. Englert, Jr., Esq.
The United States amicus curiae, represented by Thomas G. Hungar, supported the petitioner.
Respondent was represented by Carter G. Phillips, Esq.
Justice Stevens asked whether each party had been a purchaser over a long period.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned what evidence existed of competition between the parties.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens inquired whether there was proof of damages or injury to competition.
Justice Stevens asked whether a contract guaranteeing equal concessions existed and if it was breached.
- [1] fb42cfcdf66bb3543ec7-r1-11f1bb15a9cc24cd.pdf, p. 1
- [2] fb42cfcdf66bb3543ec7-r1-11f1bb15a9cc24cd.pdf, p. 1
- [3] fb42cfcdf66bb3543ec7-r1-11f1bb15a9cc24cd.pdf, p. 1
- [4] fb42cfcdf66bb3543ec7-r1-11f1bb15a9cc24cd.pdf, p. 5
- [5] fb42cfcdf66bb3543ec7-r1-11f1bb15a9cc24cd.pdf, p. 30
- [6] fb42cfcdf66bb3543ec7-r1-11f1bb15a9cc24cd.pdf, p. 56
- [7] fb42cfcdf66bb3543ec7-r1-11f1bb15a9cc24cd.pdf, p. 47
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- fb42cfcdf66bb3543ec7-r1-11f1bb15a9cc24cd.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.