October Term 2005 · Docket 04-905

Does the Robinson-Patman Act cover dealers who lose competitive bids?

Volvo Trucks and Reeder-Simco GMC dispute whether a dealer who loses a bid can sue for price discrimination.

Official caption
Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Phillips argued the case involves competition between dealers.

    Mr. Englert noted sixty-six years passed since the law passed.

    chief_justice_roberts_asked_if_the_language_covers_potential_purchasers

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of the Robinson-Patman Act. The law bans sellers from charging different prices to different buyers. The dispute centers on whether a dealer who loses a competitive bid counts as a buyer under this law.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 31, 2005.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Volvo Trucks wants the Court to say the law does not cover lost bids.

Reeder-Simco GMC wants the Court to say the law covers lost bids.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Volvo Trucks argues the law requires a completed sale to apply.

Reeder-Simco GMC argues the law covers potential buyers in competitive bidding.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked about dealers receiving different concessions over time.

Justice Stevens asked if ordinary inventory sales involve two purchasers.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines who can sue for unfair pricing. It affects how manufacturers compete with dealers. It shapes the rules for competitive bidding in commerce.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON