International Salt Company

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

INTERNATIONAL SALT COMPANY AND EASTERN SALT COMPANY COMPLAINT, FINDINGS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SUBSECS. (a) AND (d) OF SEC. 2 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED OCTOBER 15, 1914, AS AMENDED BY AN ACT APPROVED JUNE 19, 1986 Docket 4307. Complaint, June 5, 1943'—Decision, Aug. 22, 1952 Any appreciable difference in the wholesale or the retail price of table salt of the same brand, grade and quality has a tendency to divert sales. Where one of the largest salt producers in the United States and its wholly owned subsidiary, engaged in the competitive interstate sale and distribution of their evaporated salt under various trade names including “Sterling”, “Columbia”, and ‘Purity’, to purchasers competitively engaged with one another in the resale thereof at wholesale, at retail, and at wholesale to retailers competing with certain of said purchasers— (a) Discriminated in price by selling their table salt at lower net prices to purchasers classified as having purchased $50,000 worth in a twelve consecutive month period, irrespective of the source thereof, through the practice of granting such favored purchasers ua “unit discount” equal to about 4 to 5 per cent of the published price on each item; and (v) Discriminated in price in their northern sales territory, prior to January 15, 1940, through granting to purchasers who bought in single order quantities of 100 cases or more a unit discount of the same value as that above described, and thereafter through establishing higher posted prices for quantities of less than 100 cases, which made up the amount of the unit discount previously granted on 100 case purchases ; With the result that each of their customers who did not receive the advantage of buying at their lowest prices through the application of their 5 cent per case unit discount, and who were in competition with the customers who received such discriminations, necessarily either resold the salt at a higher price than that of said favored competitors or received a lower gross margin on their sales; and with tendency to cause purchasers who did not receive respondents’ lowest net price to resell their salt at higher prices than did purchasers who received respondents’ lowest prices; Effect of which discriminations in price, neither shuwn as made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor, nor justified by due allowance for differences in cost, etc., under the statute, might be substantially to lessen competition in the line of commerce concerned, and to injure, destroy and prevent competition between purchasers who received the benefit of said discriminatory prices and discounts and those to whom they were denied :

Held, That such acts and practices of respondents in selling their table salt to certain purchaser's at lower net prices than to others who competed in its resale, as above set forth, constituted violations of Subsec. (a) of, Sec. 2 of the Clayton Act. as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act; and— 1 Second amended.

INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. ET AL. 139 Syllabus Where said producer, in selling table salt to certain customers through its (c) “Local Feature Service Agreements”, which required the furnishing of certain advertising and display services by the customer and the payment to him of a specified amount by said respondent and which were negotiated individually, depending upon the judgment of respondent’s officials, in each ease, and involved many different factors, including type and quantity of advertising contemplated, type of store display offered, shelf position, quality, character, personnel, location and cleanliness of store, among others— Entered into such agreements upon «an individual basis with each customer, upon the customer’s request, as above set forth, without making any effort to inform its other customers, including competitors of those thus favored, of the existence of such agreements, and without making available to them any payments whatever for advertising or display services in lieu of payments made under such agreements:

Held, That such acts and practices of said respondent International in making payments to certain of its customers as compensation for advertising and display services under its “Local Feature Service Agreements”, without aking such payments available on proportionally equal terms to their competitors, constituted violations of Subsec. (d) of Sec. 2 of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act.

As respects respondents’ contention that their practice of granting a unit discount to purchasers classified as $50,000 purchasers, while not granting it to competing purchasers of table salt of like grade and quality was justified. Since made in good faith to meet equally low prices of competitors; It appearing that respondents in September 1936, after receiving bulletins of competitors stating that they were granting one unit discount to certain purchasers Classified as buying at least $50,000 worth of table salt in a twelve consecutive mouth period, granted identical discount to the purchasers named in said bulletin and continued the practice until June, 1945. when it was abandoned; that prior to said time, however, they had granted discounts on the basis of the total annual requirements of a purchaser, regardless of from whom they were purchased; that the price differences which resulted from the granting of such discounts to some but not ‘all of respondents’ customers were not the consequence of a departure from a nondiscriminatory pricing scale which was made to meet lower prices of competitive sellers, but represented only the continued application of the discriminatory pricing standards previously adopted by them and used since November 1985 ; and that, despite the fact that the illegal nature of the discount was brought to their attention by the Commission's original complaint in 1940, there was no evidence that they made any attempt to eliminate or lesson the amount of such discrimination until 1948: The Commission concluded that in such circumstances respondents could not be said to have acted in “good faith” within the meaning of Sec. 2 (b) of the statute involved and, after careful consideration of all the facts, was of the opinion and found, that respondents had not shown their discriminatory prices accorded to recipients of such discounts were lower prices made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor. With respect to respondents’ contention that their discriminatory lower prices on single order purchases of table salt in quantities of 100 cases or more made only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale or Syllabus 49 F.T.C.

delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such salt was sold or delivered:

The Commission found that said price discrimination had not been thus justified since, even accepting respondents’ attempted cost justification through combining all sales costs in the area concerned and dividing it by the total number of sales, with a resulting figure which would justify sales in single order quantities of 100 cases, with a discount of five cents per case, as compared with the cost of sales in single order quantities of fifty-five cases or less, it appeared that respondents refused to sell salt in quantities which would permit a minimum sale of less than seventy-four cases, and also that the record failed to provide a basis for respondents’ basic assumption that ‘the sales cost was the same for all orders. : With respect to respondents’ further contention that the $50,000 purchaser discount was similarly justified: the Commission was likewise of the opinion that said price discrimination had not been shown as justified by such costs since the analysis presented by respondents of the cost of selling to A & P as compared with the costs of selling to all other purchasers, regardless of their volumes of purchase, methods of purchasing, or price at which purchased, was incapable of establishing the differences in costs of sales as between their purchasers who received said quantity discount and those who did not, and also because the allocation of certain of the costs in said analysis was made without sufficient record basis. As respects respondents’ contention that they had discontinued the practice of granting a discount to purchasers classified as buying $50,000 worth of table salt in a twelve consecutive month period, as a result of the decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Company, 334 U. S. 87, in 1948, and that consequently there was no public interest in the issuance of an order prohibiting the practice: it appeared that respondents did not contend that they had abandoned the practice of granting a lower price to purchasers in their northern sales territory who purchased in single order quantities of 100 or more cases; that said practice involved the same amount of price discrimination and had the same effect on competition that had been held illegal; and, such being the case, the Commission was of the opinion that an order was required in the matter to impress upon the respondents the necessity of stopping all of their discriminatory pricing practices.

As regards the “Store Display and Sales Service Agreements” entered into by respondent International at various periods, with retail stores selling its “Sterling” brand of table salt to the consuming public, which called for the payment by it of about ten cents for every case of salt purchased during a specified period by the store in consideration of the store’s furnishing certain specified display services in connection with the offer of said salt during said period: it appeared that it was said respondent’s policy to enter into such agreements with every retail outlet of its table salt products in the United States, whether purchasing “Sterling” table salt from it directly or indirectly, and that respondent made every reasonable effort to carry out such policy and to make the payments under said plan available on proportionally equal terms to all the retail outlets of its said salt; and the Commission did not find respondent’s activities in connection with payments made under such agreements to have been illegal. INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. ET AL. 14] 188 Complaint Before Mr. John P. Bramhall, hearing examiner. Mr. James I. Rooney for the Commission.

_ Mr. George S. Ward, of Washington, D. C., and Putney, Twombly, Hall & Skidmore, of New York City, for respondents. AMENDED COMPLAINT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the parties respondent named in the caption hereof and hereafter more particularly designated and described, since June 19, 1936, have violated and are now violating the provisions of subsections (a) and (d) of section 2 of the Clayton Act (U.S. C. Title 15, section 13), as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, approved June 19, 1936, hereby issues its amended complaint stating its charges with respect thereto as follows:

COUNT I Paracrapu 1. International Salt Company is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, having its principal office and place of business located in the Scranton Life Insurance Company Building, Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Eastern Salt Company is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Massachusetts, having its principal office and place of business located at 150 Causeway Street, Boston, Massachusetts.

Respondent Eastern Salt Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of respondent International Salt Company and is under the direct and immediate control of, and its policies are directed by, said respondent International Salt Company.

Par. 2. Respondent International Salt Company, and its whollyowned subsidiary, Eastern Salt Company, are now and have been engaged in the business of offering for sale, selling and distributing salt in various States of the United States. The respondent International Salt Company is one of the largest producers and distributors of salt in the United States. The respondent International Salt Company also distributes its product through its wholly-owned subsidiary, respondent Eastern Salt Company. Respondent International Salt Company sells its products directly and through such subsidiary to wholesalers, retailers, corporate wholesale chains, corporate retail chains, voluntary and cooperative chains, and individual commercial purchasers. Respondents International Salt Company and Eastern Salt Company sell and distribute their products in commerce between 260133—55 13 142 FEDERAL TRADE: COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 49 F.T.C.

and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia and preliminary to or as a result of such sale cause such products to: be shipped and tranported from the places of origin of the shipment to the purchasers thereof who are located in States of the United States and in the District of Columbia other than the State of origin of the shipment, and there is and has been at all times herein mentioned a continuous current of trade in commerce in said products across State lines between respondents’ plants, factories, or warehouses and the purchasers of such products. Said products are sold and distributed for use, consumption and resale within the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. Par. 8. In the course and conduct of their business, as aforesaid, respondents have been and are now engaged in substantial competition in commerce with other corporations, individuals, partnerships and firms who for many years prior hereto have been and are now engaged in processing, selling, and distributing salt in commerce across State lines to purchasers thereof located in the various States of the United States.

Many of the respondents’ customers are competitively engaged with each other and with the customers of the respondents’ competitors in the resale of said products within the several trade areas in which the respondents’ said customers respectively offer for sale and sell the said products purchased from respondents.

Par. 4. In the course and conduct of their business, as aforesaid, since June 19, 1986, respondents have been and are now discriminating in price between different purchasers buying such products of like grade and quality by selling their products to some of their customers at higher prices than they sell products of like grade and quality to: other of their customers who are competitively engaged one with the other in the resale of said products within the United States. The respondents have effectuated their discriminations in price heretofore alleged by various and sundry means and metheds, among which are the following:

(1) The respondents grant to some of their customers who are competitively engaged in the sale of salt of like grade and quality with other of respondents’ customers a “unit discount” amounting to approximately 5¢ per case on table salt where a single order is placed for 100 cases or more of table salt.

(2) The respondents grant to some of their customers who are competitively engaged in the sale of salt of like grade and quality with other of respondents’ customers in addition to the “unit discount” referred to in Paragraph (1) hereof, “multiple unit discounts” of various amounts on all grades of salt purchased during a 12 consecu- . : “INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. ET AL. © 143:

138 Complaint.

tive month period where such purchases ‘are equal to or in excess.of : $50,000. , ; , The “multiple unit discounts” referred to in Paragraph (2) hereof: mentioned are allowed to some, but not all, customers of the respondents who do not purchase from the respondents $50,000 worth of salt during a 12 consecutive month period, provided, however, the: total purchases of salt from all sources made by said customer total $50,000 during said given period of time.

In the industry, this type of selling is known as “split business,” that is, basing the price upon the total requirements of a customer and not upon the actual quantity purchased ‘from any particular source. _In addition to the discriminations effected by the aforementioned “multiple unit discounts” respondents discriminate in price between different purchasers of their products and such price discriminations result. from the respondents’ selling salt to an individual customer where the delivery thereof is made to several branches or outlets of said individual customer at prices based upon the total quantity or volume delivered to all of the separate branches or outlets of the said customer, provided such total quantity or volume amounts to the required minimums during the 12 consecutive month period as set forth in Paragraph (2) hereinbefore mentioned and not upon the quantity or volume delivered by the respondents to the respective branches or outlets of some individual customers.

In the industry, this type of selling is known as “combined selling,” that is, basing the price upon the total quantity delivered to all the separate branches or outlets of an individual customer and not upon the quantity delivered to the respective branches or outlets of said customer. Some customers of thé respondents operating several branches whose combined purchases are less than the total quantity or volume amounts required during the 12 consecutive month period as set forth in Paragraph (2) hereinbefore mentioned receive “multiple unit discount” in addition to the “unit discounts” as set forth in Paragraph (1) hereof and are competitively engaged with other of respondents’ customers who purchase in like quantity or volume and who receive no discounts whatsoever.

Par. 5. The effect of the discriminations in price generally alleged and of those specifically set forth in Paragraph Four hereof has been _ and may be substantially to lessen competition in the line of commerce in which the purchasers receiving the benefits of such discriminatory prices are engaged and to injure, destroy and prevent competition between those purchasers receiving the benefit of said discriminatory prices and those to whom they are denied and has been and may be to tend to create a monopoly in those purchasers receiving the benefit of 144 FEDERAL. TRADE .COMMISSION . DECISIONS Complaint: 49 BR T.C.

said discriminatory prices in said line of commerce in the various localities or trade areas in the United States in which said favored customers and their competitors are engaged in business. Par. 6. The foregoing acts and practices of said resporidents are violations of subsection 2 (a) of section 1 of said Act of Congress, approved June 19, 1936, entitled “An Act to amend Section 2 of an Act entitled ‘An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies and for other purposes’ approved October 15, 1914, as amended (U.S. C. Title 15, Sec. 18) and for other purposes.” COUNT It ParacraPH 1. Paragraphs One, Two, and Three of Count I are hereby adopted and made part of this count as fully as if herein set out verbatim.

Par. 2. In the course and conduct of their business in commerce, respondents, since June 19, 1936, have secretly given free salt products or paid and contracted to pay to some of their customers certain definite sums of money as compensation and in consideration for advertising, display, and distribution services, and facilities furnished by such customers in connection with the sale and offering for sale of table salt, while concealing such gifts and payments from competing customers and not making such gifts and payments available on proportionally equal terms or on any terms to customers competing in the distribution ofsalt. Such gifts and payments are in addition to the price discriminations referred to in Count I.

Among the general practices thus pursued by the respondents in granting allowances or compensation to their favored customers, as alleged in Count ITI hereof, are the following: (1) The respondents have paid to some favored customers the sum of $50 per month as an advertising and display allowance while respondents did not and do not make such payments available on proportionally equal terms to all competing customers or on any terms to customers competing in the sale and distribution of such products. (2) The respondents have paid compensation to some retail chain store customers in connection with the sale of respondents’ table salt, the sum of $2.50 for each display of “2 pound round cans of plain or iodized Sterling Salt in quantities between 10 and 15 cases in each” of such customer’s retail outlets. The respondents have not and do not make such display allowances available on proportionally equal terms to all competing customers or on any terms to customers competing in the sale and distribution of such products. Par. 8. The respondents have not made known to their customers, except their favored customers that they grant and allow any compen- INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. ET AL. 145 18° Findings sation or free salt products for advertising, display, and distribution services. oo Par. 4. The above acts and practices of respondents are in violation of subsection (d) of section 2 of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, approved June 19, 1936 (U.S. OC. Title 15, Section 13).

Report, Frnprn¢s as TO THE Facts, AND ORDER Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress entitled “An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes,” approved October 15, 1914 (the Clayton Act), as amended by an Act of Congress approved June 19, 1936 (the Robinson-Patman Act), and by virtue of the authority vested in the Federal Trade Commission by the aforesaid Act, the Federal Trade Commission, on September 9, 1940, issued and subsequently served its original complaint in this proceeding upon the respondents named in the caption hereof, together with two other named corporations, charging each of them with violation of the provisions of subsection (a) of section 2 of the aforesaid Clayton Act, asamended. On April 2, 1942, the Commission issued and subsequently served its first amended complaint charging the same respondents as named in the original complaint with violation of the provisions of subsections (a) and (d) of section 2 of the aforesaid Clayton Act, as amended. After the issuance of the first amended complaint and the filing of respondents’ answers thereto, testimony and other evidence in support of the allegations of said complaint were taken before a hearing examiner of the Commission duly designated by it. Thereafter, on June 5, 1948, the Commission issued and subsequently served its second amended complaint upon the respondents named in the caption hereof, charging each of them with violation of the provisions of subsections (a) and (d) of section 2 of the aforesaid Clayton Act, as amended. After the filing of respondents’ answers to the second amended complaint, testimony and other evidence in support of and in opposition to the allegations of said complaint were introduced before the hearing examiner of the Commission previously designated by it. All of the testimony and other evidence introduced before said hearing examiner were duly recorded and filed in the office of the Commission. Thereafter, this proceeding regularly came on for final hearing before the Commission upon the second amended complaint, the answers thereto, testimony and other evidence, the recommended decision of the hearing examiner and respondents’ exceptions thereto, and briefs and oral argument of counsel; and the Commission, having duly considered Findings 49 F.Y.0.

-the matter and having entered its order disposing of the exceptions to the hearing examiner’s recommended decision and being now fully advised in the premises, makes this its findings as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom:

FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS Paracrary 1. Respondent International Salt Company is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its office and principal place of business in the Scranton Life Insurance Building, Scranton, Pennsylvania. Respondent Eastern Salt Company is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Massachusetts, with its office and principal place of business at 150 Causeway Street, Boston, Massachusetts. Respondent Eastern Salt Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of respondent International Salt Company by whom its sales policies,-at all times material herein, have been controlled and directed.

Par. 2. Respondent International Salt Company, one of the largest salt producers in the United States, has been engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of salt, including table salt, since April 1, 1940. Prior to that date said business was carried on by this respondent’s wholly owned subsidiaries. Respondent International Salt Company and its said subsidiaries have sold their salt products in the eastern and.southern States of.the United States. Since prior to June 19, 1936, respondent. Eastern Salt Company has been engaged in the sale and distribution of salt products, including table salt, purchased largely from its parent corpor ation, respondent International Salt Company. Its sales territory is limited to the States of New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

Respondents transport or cause said salt products, when sold, to be transported to the purchasers thereof at their respective locations in States other than the States in which the shipments originate. Respondents maintain, and during the periods of time they have been engaged in the business of selling and distributing salt, as aforesaid, they have maintained, a course of trade in said products in commerce among and between the various States of the United States. Par. 8. In the course and conduct of their business as aforesaid, respondents are now, and during. the periods of time they have been engaged in the business of. selling and distributing salt as aforesaid, they have been, in substantial competition with éther corporations engaged in the business of selling and distributing salt in commerce among and between the various States of the United States. INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. ET AL. 147 138 Findings Par. 4. Respondent International Salt Company packages evaporated table salt under various trade names, including “Sterling,” “Columbia” and “Purity.” All of the evaporated table salt.sold under ‘each of said brand names is of like grade and quality. Par. 5. Respondent Eastern Salt Company since September 15, 1936, and respondent International Salt Company since April 1, 1940, in the course and conduct of their respective businesses as above described, have both discriminated in price between their respective purchasers buying table salt of like grade and quality by selling said table salt to some of their purchasers at higher prices than they sold their products of like grade and quality to other of their purchasers. Certain of said other purchasers were competitively engaged with certain of said favored purchasers in the resale of said table salt at wholesale. Others were competitively engaged with certain of said favored purchasers in the resale of said table salt at retail. Others sold said table salt at wholesale to retailers who were engaged in competition with certain of said favored purchasers in the resale of said table salt to the consuming public.

Par. 6. The general practices pursued by respondents in so discriminating in price have consisted of (1) selling at lower net prices to purchasers classified as having purchased $50,000 worth of table salt in a twelve consecutive month period, and (2) selling at lower net prices to purchasers buying carton table salt in single order quantities of 100 cases or more. a The first of these pricing practices was engaged in by respondent Eastern Salt Company from September 17, 1936, until June 1948 and by respondent International Salt Company from April 1, 1940, until June 1948. The second of these pricing practices has been engaged in by respondent Eastern Salt Company at all times since September 15, 1936, and by respondent International Salt Company at all times since April 1, 1940. Prior to April 1, 1940, respondent International Salt Company was not actively engaged in the sale of salt products, these activities having then been carried on by its wholly owned subsidiaries, including International Salt Company, Inc., which engaged in the above referred to pricing practices from September 17, 1936, until it was dissolved on April 1, 1940. Respondents discriminated in price during said periods of time in favor of their purchasers classified as having purchased $50,000 or more of table salt in a twelve consecutive month period by granting to each of them a price discount called a “unit discount.” A “unit discount” consisted of a specified amount in cents per case of table salt, which amount varied from item to item but which equalled approximately 4 to 5 percent of the published price on each item. The 148 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ‘DECISIONS Findings 49 F.T.C.

purchasers receiving the discount were accounts which had purchased $50,000 worth of table salt in a twelve consecutive month period from all sources. This classification was not restricted to those accounts which had purchased table salt in this quantity from respondents alone.

The discrimination in price in favor of purchasers buying in single order quantities of 100 cases or more was made from September 15, 1936, until January 15, 1940, by granting to such purchasers one “unit discount.” This unit discount was of the same value as the unit discount previously described. Since January 15, 1940, this discrimination has been made by establishing higher published prices for quantities of less than 100 cases. The difference in price between orders of 100 cases or more and those for lesser quantities, in effect since January 15, 1940, has been equal in amount to the unit discount previously granted on purchases of 100 cases or more. This pricing practice has at all times been limited to respondents’ northern sales territory which consists of the New England States, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia and two counties in Virginia. In the southern sales territory, sales have been regularly made at prices equal to the 100 cases quantity price in the northern sales territory regardless of the quantity purchased. Par. 7. Respondent Eastern Salt Company has granted the unit discount for purchasers classified as buying $50,000 or more of table salt in a consecutive twelve month period to only one of its purchasers, First National Stores, Inc., of Somerville, Massachusetts. This corporation, which operates approximately 1800 retail grocery stores in the New England area, purchased in carload quantities and, therefore, received this respondent’s lowest net price. For example, in April 1942, this respondent sold to First National Stores, Inc., “Sterling” brand table salt in one and one-half pound cartons at a net delivered price of $1.03 per case and “Purity” brand table sale in one and onehalf pound cartons at a net delivered price of ninety-three cents per case. These prices were one unit discount of five cents per case lower than the lowest price at which this respondent sold the same brand of salt in the same cartons to its other purchasers. These other purchasers included smaller retail chain stores which were in direct competition with First National Stores, Inc., in the resale of said brands of table salt to the consuming public. These other purchasers also included wholesalers whose retail customers were in competition with First National Stores, Inc., in the resale of said brands of table salt to the consuming public.

Par. 8. Respondent International Salt Company has granted the unit discount to purchasers classified as buying $50,000 or more of table salt in a consecutive twelve month period to certain chain retail INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. ET AL. 149 138 Findings grocery stores, wholesalers and cooperative wholesale buying organizations through which affiliated members, wholesale and retail, purchase grocery products. The favored chain retail grocery purchasers were The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Sanitary Grocery Co., Inc. (Safeway Stores, Inc.), American Stores, Inc., Kroger Grocery and Baking Company, Dixie Home Stores, First National Stores, Inc., Creasy Corporation, and Colonial Stores, Inc. The favored wholesale purchasers were the Thomas & Howard Company and C D. Kenny Co. The favored cooperative wholesale buying organizations were the National Retailer-Owned Groceries, Inc., and the Wholesale Grocery Sales Company.

As a result of the discount allowed the above-named purchasers on the $50,000 purchase basis, the prices paid by said purchasers to respondent International Salt Company on their purchases of table salt in quantities of 100 cases or more has been one unit discount less than the lowest price available to any of this respondent’s other customers in the same competitive area. For example, in 1942, this respondent sold to The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company “Sterling” brand table salt in one and one-half pound cartons at a net delivered price of $1.03 per case, while the lowest price at which it sold the same brand of table salt in one and one-half pound cartons to purchasers other than those above named was $1.08 per case. Certain of said other purchasers were in competition with one or more of said favored purchasers in the resale of said respondent’s table salt of the same brand, grade and quality at wholesale. Others were in competition with one or more of said favored chain retail grocery purchasers in its resale at retail to the consuming public. And others sold at wholesale to retail grocers who were in competition with one or more of said favored chain retail grocery purchasers in the resale of said table salt to the consuming public. The record shows that many of the above-named purchasers who received the $50,000 purchaser discount on their purchases of table salt did not purchase in that quantity from either of the respondents herein during any consecutive twelve month period. For example, the dollar purchases of table salt from respondents of the following listed purchasers, each of whom received said discount in 1940 and 1941, totaled as follows:

1940 1941 Wholesale Grocery Sales Company. $18, 714 $14, 479 C.D. Kenny Co_.-..-._.---. 2, 947 1,670 Creasy Corporation...._..._. 9 490 American Stores, Inc._....-...-.----.------------ 1,290 1,631 Sanitary Grocery Co., Inc. (Safeway Stores, Inc.).......-..------.--- - 11, 909 11, 878 National Retailer-Owned Groceries, Inc_.........-..------.------------ een eee 22, 900 29, 160 Findings 49 F.T.C.

Par. 9. The Commission finds that the price differences allowed by respondents in the sale of their table salt of the same brand, including the price differential on purchases of 100 cases or more and the unit discount allowed to the accounts classified as $50,000 purchasers, constituted discriminations in price between purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality.

Each of respondents’ customers not receiving the advantage of buying at respondents’ lowest prices, who were in competition in the resale ‘of said table salt at retail or at wholesale with respondents’ customers receiving the benefit of said discriminations in price, necessarily either resold its table salt at a higher price than said favored competitors or received a lower gross margin on its sales of said salt. Par. 10. As an example of the competitive pricing situation in the retail field among purchasers buying table salt from respondents at different prices, the record shows that The Great Atlantic & Pacific ‘Tea Company and Thomas Roulston, Inc., sold respondents’ table salt through their chain retail grocery stores in the Long Island-Brooklyn, New York, area in competition with each other. Both purchased and resold respondents’ “Sterling” brand one and one-half pound cartons of table salt. During 1940 and 1941, the former bought said salt from respondent International Salt Company at its lowest net price of $1.03 per case of thirty-six cartons and resold it through its selfservice stores in this area at three cartons for ten cents and through its regular stores at two cartons for nine cents. During the same period of time the latter, which was not classified as a $50,000 pur- ‘chaser, purchased said salt from said respondent at $1.08 per case and resold it through its stores at five cents per carton, except for short intervals in which it received advertising allowances from said respondent, during which intervals it lowered its resale price to four and one-half cents per carton.

If Thomas Roulston, Inc., had met the A & P self-service stores’ price of three cartons for ten cents, the five cent price discrimination would have allowed A & Pa gross margin on its sales of table salt 41 percent larger than the margin of Thomas Roulston, Inc., on its sales of salt of the same brand.

Par. 11. Asan example of the competitive pricing situation in the wholesale field by purchasers buying from respondents at different prices, Talmadge Bros., Inc., of Athens, Georgia, not classified as a $50,000 purchaser, during 1941 and 1942 purchased from respondent International Salt Company “Sterling” brand table salt in one and one-half pound cartons at $1.08 per case of thirty-six cartons, which it resold to retailers at $1.25 per case. Talmadge Bros., Inc., was at that ‘time in competition with the Timberlake Grocery Company, a member INTERNATIONAL5 1 1 1 1 2 1208 458 90 27 90.260201 SALTS 1 1 1 1 3 1321 457 54 28 28.937050 €O,5 1 1 1 1 4 1398 458 50 27 95.552818 ET5 1 1 1 1 5 1472 460 56 25 88.279488 AL.5 1 1 1 1 6 1792 450 67 38 96.357727 1514 1 1 1 2 0 550 541 724 34 -1 5 1 1 1 2 1 550 541 74 30 46.615234 138°5 1 1 1 2 2 1133 541 141 34 90.348839 Findings2 1 2 0 0 0 538 613 1321 2170 -1 3 1 2 1 0 0 547 613 1312 1008 -1 4 1 2 1 1 0 552 613 1307 46 -1 5 1 2 1 1 1 552 620 38 33 96.233841 of5 1 2 1 1 2 608 621 58 32 95.758049 thes 1 2 1 1 3 673 614 163 38 93.287262 Thomas5 1 2 1 1 4 847 621 28 30 93.201035 &5 1 2 1 1 5 892 614 152 37 96.044418 Howard5 1 2 1 1 6 1055 614 198 45 75.713913 ‘Company5 1 2 1 1 7 1258 614 109 45 70.437851 ‘groups 1 2 1 1 8 1384 614 111 35 96.674797 which5 1 2 1 1 9 1513 625 69 24 96.106857 was5 1 2 1 1 10 1599 613 177 35 59.645275 classified5 1 2 1 1 11 1783 625 37 23 59.645275 as5 1 2 1 1 12 1838 627 21 21 96.512291 a4 1 2 1 2 0 549 665 1308 47 -1 5 1 2 1 2 1 549 670 134 41 96.720558 $50,0005 1 2 1 2 2 696 665 193 52 96.765556 purchaser,5 1 2 1 2 3 902 668 111 33 97.000443 which5 1 2 1 2 4 1027 679 167 31 96.551865 company5 1 2 1 2 5 1207 665 188 44 96.961967 purchased5 1 2 1 2 6 1408 668 58 31 96.647827 thes 1 2 1 2 7 1480 677 90 21 96.647827 same5 1 2 1 2 8 1578 665 91 33 96.494629 items 1 2 1 2 9 1677 666 91 32 96.985573 from5 1 2 1 2 10 1781 666 76 32 91.615898 said4 1 2 1 3 0 550 716 1307 47 -1 5 1 2 1 3 1 550 715 205 48 96.744293 respondents 1 2 1 3 2 769 724 36 28 96.524887 at5 1 2 1 3 3 819 732 20 21 95.139481 a5 1 2 1 3 4 851 724 59 28 95.139481 nets 1 2 1 3 5 922 719 94 42 96.932182 prices 1 2 1 3 6 1030 719 37 33 96.891716 of5 1 2 1 3 7 1082 719 90 38 96.101601 $1.035 1 2 1 3 8 1189 729 61 31 96.512695 pers 1 2 1 3 9 1264 728 73 28 96.594406 cases 1 2 1 3 10 1352 718 67 32 96.921425 ands 1 2 1 3 11 1435 717 110 33 96.975571 resold5 1 2 1 3 12 1560 718 29 32 96.698166 it5 1 2 1 3 13 1602 721 35 29 96.888779 to5 1 2 1 3 14 1652 716 155 33 96.500870 retailers5 1 2 1 3 15 1821 721 36 28 96.500870 at4 1 2 1 4 0 550 768 726 45 -1 5 1 2 1 4 1 550 771 93 39 96.767265 $1.205 1 2 1 4 2 656 782 62 31 96.600960 pers 1 2 1 4 3 730 782 75 22 96.832596 cases 1 2 1 4 4 819 770 126 42 96.134964 during5 1 2 1 4 5 958 770 70 32 96.925331 this5 1 2 1 4 6 1042 780 90 22 96.773018 same5 1 2 1 4 7 1147 768 129 43 96.326942 period.4 1 2 1 5 0 552 818 1304 43 -1 5 1 2 1 5 1 552 827 3 2 0.000000 ’5 1 2 1 5 2 590 821 92 33 95.705788 Both5 1 2 1 5 3 694 821 39 32 95.705788 of5 1 2 1 5 4 745 821 94 32 96.553810 these5 1 2 1 5 5 851 820 201 41 96.855476 companies,5 1 2 1 5 6 1066 819 181 40 96.823830 therefore,5 1 2 1 5 7 1262 819 150 32 96.740036 received5 1 2 1 5 8 1426 830 43 22 96.773094 an5 1 2 1 5 9 1485 818 161 33 96.384155 identical5 1 2 1 5 10 1660 829 94 32 93.296944 gross5 1 2 1 5 11 1768 829 88 21 91.944725 mar-4 1 2 1 6 0 548 869 1310 46 -1 5 1 2 1 6 1 548 872 60 43 96.896332 gins 1 2 1 6 2 622 872 37 33 96.942688 of5 1 2 1 6 3 673 875 175 30 96.013474 seventeen5 1 2 1 6 4 861 875 91 28 96.762917 cents5 1 2 1 6 5 965 881 61 31 89.415176 pers 1 2 1 6 6 1039 881 82 22 89.415176 case.5 1 2 1 6 7 1165 869 40 33 91.143715 If5 1 2 1 6 8 1218 869 187 42 91.143715 Talmadge5 1 2 1 6 9 1417 870 107 39 90.428551 Bros.,5 1 2 1 6 10 1538 869 82 40 89.981773 Inc.,5 1 2 1 6 11 1634 869 69 32 96.245216 had5 1 2 1 6 12 1717 873 70 28 96.817467 met5 1 2 1 6 13 1799 869 59 32 96.969727 thea 1 2 1 7 0 548 916 1309 47 -1 5 1 2 1 7 1 548 923 215 32 95.121902 Timberlake5 1 2 1 7 2 780 917 149 46 92.564751 Grocery5 1 2 1 7 3 948 916 204 47 90.892532 Company’s5 1 2 1 7 4 1169 920 94 43 96.761177 prices 1 2 1 7 5 1281 920 38 32 96.251190 of5 1 2 1 7 6 1336 920 91 37 96.935753 $1.205 1 2 1 7 7 1446 930 61 31 96.980072 pers 1 2 1 7 8 1524 930 83 30 96.759567 case,5 1 2 1 7 9 1624 920 58 31 97.003540 thes 1 2 1 7 10 1699 920 64 31 97.014099 five5 1 2 1 7 11 1782 923 75 28 96.878166 cent4 1 2 1 8 0 548 968 1308 49 -1 5 1 2 1 8 1 548 968 93 49 96.775711 prices 1 2 1 8 2 666 972 271 34 96.232353 discriminations 1 2 1 8 3 964 972 113 32 95.942703 would5 1 2 1 8 4 1102 972 87 32 95.942703 have5 1 2 1 8 5 1216 971 142 33 95.460396 allowed5 1 2 1 8 6 1384 971 57 32 96.513535 thes 1 2 1 8 7 1465 970 215 33 96.570435 Timberlake5 1 2 1 8 8 1707 969 149 43 96.584335 Grocery4 1 2 1 9 0 549 1020 1307 46 -1 5 1 2 1 9 1 549 1020 184 46 96.802864 Company5 1 2 1 9 2 745 1035 19 21 96.651657 a5 1 2 1 9 3 781 1026 40 30 96.309151 415 1 2 1 9 4 840 1019 137 46 96.581535 percent5 1 2 1 9 5 994 1022 113 42 96.913239 larger5 1 2 1 9 6 1124 1032 96 31 96.483177 gross5 1 2 1 9 7 1237 1022 135 41 96.374672 margins 1 2 1 9 8 1390 1032 43 21 95.742607 on5 1 2 1 9 9 1451 1021 45 32 95.725632 its5 1 2 1 9 10 1514 1021 84 32 96.687141 sales5 1 2 1 9 11 1618 1020 37 33 96.449173 of5 1 2 1 9 12 1675 1020 74 33 96.439087 said5 1 2 1 9 13 1765 1020 91 33 96.439087 table4 1 2 1 10 0 547 1070 1309 44 -1 5 1 2 1 10 1 547 1072 67 35 94.107986 salts 1 2 1 10 2 628 1076 84 31 96.064072 than5 1 2 1 10 3 726 1075 77 32 96.921638 that5 1 2 1 10 4 816 1074 39 32 96.263054 of5 1 2 1 10 5 868 1073 188 41 93.296539 Talmadge5 1 2 1 10 6 1070 1073 108 40 92.890068 Bros.,5 1 2 1 10 7 1194 1074 81 39 93.002090 Inc.,5 1 2 1 10 8 1290 1082 43 22 96.972710 on5 1 2 1 10 9 1348 1068 44 35 96.722870 its5 1 2 1 10 10 1408 1062 84 41 96.957436 sales5 1 2 1 10 11 1507 1071 38 31 96.908806 of5 1 2 1 10 12 1560 1071 67 31 96.286011 salts 1 2 1 10 13 1640 1070 39 32 96.286011 of5 1 2 1 10 14 1693 1071 57 30 96.983704 thes 1 2 1 10 15 1767 1081 89 20 96.969215 same4 1 2 1 11 0 549 1127 116 32 -1 5 1 2 1 11 1 549 1127 116 32 96.436371 brand.4 1 2 1 12 0 553 1167 1303 46 -1 5 1 2 1 12 1 553 1182 3 3 0.000000 '5 1 2 1 12 2 590 1176 81 33 89.248802 Par.5 1 2 1 12 3 689 1178 47 31 93.864334 12.5 1 2 1 12 4 760 1176 43 32 87.417557 In5 1 2 1 12 5 817 1187 19 21 81.487625 a5 1 2 1 12 6 851 1175 131 32 81.487625 similar5 1 2 1 12 7 996 1169 141 37 96.683182 manners 1 2 1 12 8 1151 1173 81 33 97.003036 each5 1 2 1 12 9 1246 1172 139 32 96.357185 retailers 1 2 1 12 10 1399 1167 75 37 96.357185 who5 1 2 1 12 11 1489 1172 190 41 93.256577 purchased5 1 2 1 12 12 1695 1171 161 42 93.087334 respond-4 1 2 1 13 0 547 1223 1308 40 -1 5 1 2 1 13 1 547 1223 84 38 96.665192 ents’5 1 2 1 13 2 646 1228 91 33 92.774734 tables 1 2 1 13 3 747 1228 71 32 92.774734 salts 1 2 1 13 4 833 1227 91 31 96.314224 from5 1 2 1 13 5 940 1236 62 21 93.090508 ones 1 2 1 13 6 1018 1224 286 39 52.765499 of:respondents’5 1 2 1 13 7 1319 1223 179 32 96.469879 wholesale5 1 2 1 13 8 1513 1223 201 38 96.352264 purchasers5 1 2 1 13 9 1730 1225 61 28 93.256935 not5 1 2 1 13 10 1804 1232 51 21 91.985886 re-4 1 2 1 14 0 547 1271 1309 49 -1 5 1 2 1 14 1 547 1278 135 46 96.894859 ceiving5 1 2 1 14 2 692 1278 59 33 96.875999 thes 1 2 1 14 3 762 1278 117 32 96.780869 lowest5 1 2 1 14 4 890 1277 93 40 96.578484 prices 1 2 1 14 5 994 1286 69 22 96.196068 was5 1 2 1 14 6 1075 1274 202 40 96.196068 necessarily5 1 2 1 14 7 1289 1274 120 41 96.080299 placed5 1 2 1 14 8 1422 1277 36 29 96.358925 at5 1 2 1 14 9 1471 1284 19 21 96.358925 a5 1 2 1 14 10 1504 1267 265 47 96.565468 disadvantages 1 2 1 14 11 1762 1283 36 21 96.824852 in5 1 2 1 14 12 1811 1271 45 33 96.590218 its4 1 2 1 15 0 548 1322 1308 48 -1 5 1 2 1 15 1 548 1321 162 49 95.499763 attempts5 1 2 1 15 2 724 1332 36 28 96.991051 to5 1 2 1 15 3 774 1328 61 32 96.297409 sells 1 2 1 15 4 850 1328 74 45 96.798790 said5 1 2 1 15 5 938 1327 90 32 93.305801 tables 1 2 1 15 6 1042 1326 116 33 53.467350 salt'in5 1 2 1 15 7 1174 1325 220 41 95.885094 competitions 1 2 1 15 8 1409 1325 84 31 96.727943 with5 1 2 1 15 9 1509 1323 231 42 94.141144 respondents’5 1 2 1 15 10 1756 1322 100 33 95.968079 retail4 1 2 1 16 0 547 1373 1309 47 -1 5 1 2 1 16 1 547 1379 200 41 96.050415 purchasers5 1 2 1 16 2 766 1378 169 41 96.862793 receiving5 1 2 1 16 3 952 1378 58 32 96.565979 thes 1 2 1 16 4 1026 1377 116 32 96.603119 lowest5 1 2 1 16 5 1159 1376 102 45 95.457626 price.5 1 2 1 16 6 1307 1375 84 34 95.457626 Said5 1 2 1 16 7 1408 1374 138 33 96.608681 retailers 1 2 1 16 8 1564 1374 108 32 96.533798 either5 1 2 1 16 9 1689 1374 74 32 96.779976 sold5 1 2 1 16 10 1781 1373 75 32 96.717987 said4 1 2 1 17 0 547 1423 1309 58 -1 5 1 2 1 17 1 547 1429 91 32 96.832787 tables 1 2 1 17 2 652 1430 66 31 96.708183 salts 1 2 1 17 3 731 1433 36 28 96.708183 at5 1 2 1 17 4 780 1440 18 21 96.776176 a5 1 2 1 17 5 812 1428 123 42 96.786453 higher5 1 2 1 17 6 948 1428 92 42 96.884438 prices 1 2 1 17 7 1054 1427 84 32 96.888016 than5 1 2 1 17 8 1153 1426 73 32 96.888016 said5 1 2 1 17 9 1242 1420 143 38 96.890083 favored5 1 2 1 17 10 1399 1425 100 32 96.938568 retails 1 2 1 17 11 1513 1424 218 57 96.864815 competitors5 1 2 1 17 12 1745 1434 39 21 96.703926 or5 1 2 1 17 13 1798 1423 58 32 96.939163 thea 1 2 1 18 0 547 1474 1309 48 -1 5 1 2 1 18 1 547 1486 95 36 96.495598 gross5 1 2 1 18 2 662 1479 135 42 96.227089 margins 1 2 1 18 3 817 1479 148 32 95.791374 between5 1 2 1 18 4 986 1478 44 32 93.297073 its5 1 2 1 18 5 1050 1476 231 34 86.743874 wholesaler’s.5 1 2 1 18 6 1295 1476 165 42 96.678047 purchases 1 2 1 18 7 1480 1475 123 42 96.678047 prices 1 2 1 18 8 1595 1475 67 32 96.771935 ands 1 2 1 18 9 1684 1475 44 31 96.715828 its5 1 2 1 18 10 1750 1474 106 32 96.345840 resale4 1 2 1 19 0 547 1524 1309 49 -1 5 1 2 1 19 1 547 1531 93 42 52.524323 prices 1 2 1 19 2 655 1534 35 29 52.524323 to5 1 2 1 19 3 705 1530 59 33 96.658096 thes 1 2 1 19 4 779 1529 200 42 96.389404 consuming5 1 2 1 19 5 992 1527 117 43 96.488075 public5 1 2 1 19 6 1123 1539 69 21 96.756439 was5 1 2 1 19 7 1208 1527 64 33 96.944160 less5 1 2 1 19 8 1289 1527 85 33 96.944679 than5 1 2 1 19 9 1390 1527 58 32 96.997726 thes 1 2 1 19 10 1462 1536 96 33 96.641518 gross5 1 2 1 19 11 1574 1525 136 41 96.985855 margins 1 2 1 19 12 1726 1524 39 33 96.913109 of5 1 2 1 19 13 1781 1524 75 33 96.957199 said4 1 2 1 20 0 547 1579 511 42 -1 5 1 2 1 20 1 547 1582 143 32 96.759460 favored5 1 2 1 20 2 705 1581 100 33 96.345848 retails 1 2 1 20 3 820 1579 238 42 91.777206 competitors’.3 1 2 2 0 0 538 1598 1318 322 -1 4 1 2 2 1 0 588 1598 1266 76 -1 5 1 2 2 1 1 588 1623 69 41 96.805634 For5 1 2 2 1 2 675 1631 163 41 96.342834 example,5 1 2 2 1 3 856 1631 73 31 96.936714 Thes 1 2 2 1 4 948 1629 104 33 96.940796 Great5 1 2 2 1 5 1071 1628 156 33 93.184624 Atlantic5 1 2 2 1 6 1246 1629 27 30 93.184624 &5 1 2 2 1 7 1291 1598 126 76 96.197762 Pacific5 1 2 2 1 8 1434 1627 69 32 96.770874 Teas 1 2 2 1 9 1522 1626 205 42 96.619392 Company5 1 2 2 1 10 1718 1637 36 20 95.461632 in5 1 2 2 1 11 1774 1628 80 29 95.461632 19414 1 2 2 2 0 545 1676 1310 49 -1 5 1 2 2 2 1 545 1683 190 42 96.718323 purchased5 1 2 2 2 2 757 1692 63 21 95.604431 ones 1 2 2 2 3 841 1681 68 32 95.604431 ands 1 2 2 2 4 931 1679 154 33 96.645622 one-half5 1 2 2 2 5 1107 1679 116 42 96.812614 pounds 1 2 2 2 6 1246 1677 193 42 96.407112 “Sterling”5 1 2 2 2 7 1460 1680 133 29 96.407112 cartons5 1 2 2 2 8 1615 1676 39 33 97.001152 of5 1 2 2 2 9 1676 1676 91 48 96.118279 tables 1 2 2 2 10 1789 1676 66 47 96.118279 salt4 1 2 2 3 0 547 1728 1308 46 -1 5 1 2 2 3 1 547 1734 91 32 96.685364 from5 1 2 2 3 2 656 1733 205 41 96.435829 respondents 1 2 2 3 3 877 1730 252 33 96.666840 International5 1 2 2 3 4 1147 1730 77 32 96.616592 Salts 1 2 2 3 5 1243 1730 176 40 96.591614 Company5 1 2 2 3 6 1438 1732 39 28 94.643700 at.5 1 2 2 3 7 1491 1728 48 31 94.643700 its5 1 2 2 3 8 1553 1728 117 30 96.015602 lowest5 1 2 2 3 9 1688 1731 57 27 96.736954 nets 1 2 2 3 10 1762 1721 93 46 96.280777 price4 1 2 2 4 0 546 1776 1308 48 -1 5 1 2 2 4 1 546 1784 39 31 96.782394 of5 1 2 2 4 2 602 1784 92 37 76.605247 $1.035 1 2 2 4 3 713 1794 60 30 96.510712 pers 1 2 2 4 4 790 1793 73 22 95.529060 cases 1 2 2 4 5 881 1782 39 32 96.725868 of5 1 2 2 4 6 937 1780 178 42 96.396538 thirty-six5 1 2 2 4 7 1133 1783 145 29 96.477570 cartons.5 1 2 2 4 8 1321 1779 45 31 95.411301 In5 1 2 2 4 9 1384 1778 58 32 96.831551 thes 1 2 2 4 10 1459 1778 82 33 96.518990 News 1 2 2 4 11 1560 1777 97 32 96.749329 Yorks 1 2 2 4 12 1676 1776 81 43 95.981827 City5 1 2 2 4 13 1777 1787 77 22 96.826019 area4 1 2 2 5 0 545 1822 1309 49 -1 5 1 2 2 5 1 545 1836 33 32 87.546272 A5 1 2 2 5 2 595 1836 27 31 56.937645 &P5 1 2 2 5 3 681 1833 111 33 96.622673 resold5 1 2 2 5 4 808 1833 92 33 96.705048 these5 1 2 2 5 5 916 1836 134 28 96.705048 cartons5 1 2 2 5 6 1065 1830 38 33 96.872810 of5 1 2 2 5 7 1118 1830 67 33 96.872810 salts 1 2 2 5 8 1199 1830 151 41 96.645088 through5 1 2 2 5 9 1366 1829 45 32 96.682266 its5 1 2 2 5 10 1426 1827 207 33 96.764053 self-services 1 2 2 5 11 1650 1837 101 31 93.233704 super5 1 2 2 5 12 1765 1822 89 36 92.609123 mar-4 1 2 2 6 0 538 1877 1318 43 -1 5 1 2 2 6 1 538 1886 81 31 93.976677 ‘kets5 1 2 2 6 2 636 1888 35 29 96.578896 at5 1 2 2 6 3 686 1884 95 33 96.578896 three5 1 2 2 6 4 796 1887 134 28 96.644073 cartons5 1 2 2 6 5 947 1882 57 32 96.917801 for5 1 2 2 6 6 1020 1886 58 27 96.586075 tens 1 2 2 6 7 1094 1885 101 28 95.695869 cents.5 1 2 2 6 8 1239 1879 84 32 96.705544 This5 1 2 2 6 9 1339 1878 154 42 96.853867 equalled5 1 2 2 6 10 1508 1878 93 38 96.552567 $1.205 1 2 2 6 11 1618 1888 62 31 96.942520 pers 1 2 2 6 12 1696 1887 73 21 96.321381 cases 1 2 2 6 13 1787 1877 69 32 96.321381 and3 1 2 3 0 0 545 1927 1311 756 -1 4 1 2 3 1 0 547 1927 1309 49 -1 5 1 2 3 1 1 547 1936 142 33 96.620941 allowed5 1 2 3 1 2 700 1936 34 30 88.228783 A5 1 2 3 1 3 744 1936 28 31 88.228783 &5 1 2 3 1 4 782 1934 29 32 89.037598 P5 1 2 3 1 5 824 1945 19 21 96.779144 a5 1 2 3 1 6 854 1938 95 38 96.318932 gross5 1 2 3 1 7 961 1926 135 47 96.981720 margins 1 2 3 1 8 1109 1931 38 32 96.748474 of5 1 2 3 1 9 1159 1926 175 36 96.958382 seventeen5 1 2 3 1 10 1346 1933 91 28 96.433846 cents5 1 2 3 1 11 1449 1939 61 30 74.819489 pers 1 2 3 1 12 1521 1938 83 22 74.819489 case.5 1 2 3 1 13 1648 1927 138 41 96.585449 During5 1 2 3 1 14 1797 1927 59 31 96.718857 thea 1 2 3 2 0 546 1976 1309 52 -1 5 1 2 3 2 1 546 1998 104 21 96.089218 same5 1 2 3 2 2 656 1985 123 43 50.516888 periods 1 2 3 2 3 796 1984 38 33 96.684570 of5 1 2 3 2 4 852 1983 91 40 96.349632 time,5 1 2 3 2 5 960 1980 234 43 96.248192 respondents’5 1 2 3 2 6 1214 1975 179 36 96.300682 wholesale5 1 2 3 2 7 1413 1977 229 43 96.831787 purchasers5 1 2 3 2 8 1633 1989 37 20 96.561653 in5 1 2 3 2 9 1688 1976 70 32 96.699081 this5 1 2 3 2 10 1777 1987 78 21 96.864975 area4 1 2 3 3 0 547 2027 1309 44 -1 5 1 2 3 3 1 547 2037 76 33 96.982750 who5 1 2 3 3 2 637 2037 59 32 96.981850 did5 1 2 3 3 3 710 2040 60 28 96.981850 not5 1 2 3 3 4 783 2034 128 33 96.913300 receives 1 2 3 3 5 922 2034 58 31 96.644089 thes 1 2 3 3 6 993 2033 156 32 96.668610 discounts 1 2 3 3 7 1162 2031 57 32 97.000938 for5 1 2 3 3 8 1232 2031 134 40 96.519821 $50,0005 1 2 3 3 9 1378 2028 202 51 96.981682 purchasers5 1 2 3 3 10 1591 2027 85 42 96.421272 paid5 1 2 3 3 11 1687 2027 94 38 89.745903 $1.185 1 2 3 3 12 1794 2037 62 32 95.920441 per4 1 2 3 4 0 546 2078 1310 42 -1 5 1 2 3 4 1 546 2098 74 22 92.485931 cases 1 2 3 4 2 634 2087 57 32 96.678879 for5 1 2 3 4 3 704 2086 59 33 97.007866 thes 1 2 3 4 4 775 2082 90 36 96.427124 same5 1 2 3 4 5 877 2085 67 31 96.181602 salts 1 2 3 4 6 957 2094 44 22 96.980309 on5 1 2 3 4 7 1013 2083 116 33 96.828262 orders5 1 2 3 4 8 1142 2082 109 31 96.684303 under5 1 2 3 4 9 1266 2082 59 30 96.515900 1005 1 2 3 4 10 1337 2076 101 44 96.685570 cases,5 1 2 3 4 11 1453 2091 37 20 97.011238 or5 1 2 3 4 12 1504 2079 82 41 97.019264 paid5 1 2 3 4 13 1600 2078 92 38 96.982376 $1.085 1 2 3 4 14 1708 2088 61 31 97.008560 pers 1 2 3 4 15 1782 2088 74 21 96.990799 case4 1 2 3 5 0 546 2128 1310 51 -1 5 1 2 3 5 1 546 2150 44 21 96.728493 on5 1 2 3 5 2 604 2139 114 40 96.379028 larger5 1 2 3 5 3 733 2136 124 33 96.513283 orders.5 1 2 3 5 4 901 2135 50 32 94.908646 To5 1 2 3 5 5 966 2134 86 41 96.261337 have5 1 2 3 5 6 1066 2136 68 29 96.419991 met5 1 2 3 5 7 1147 2133 34 31 93.159393 A5 1 2 3 5 8 1195 2133 28 31 92.973892 &5 1 2 3 5 9 1237 2131 56 33 89.715546 P’s5 1 2 3 5 10 1307 2130 93 43 96.971756 prices 1 2 3 5 11 1415 2130 39 34 96.976242 of5 1 2 3 5 12 1467 2130 95 33 95.302338 three5 1 2 3 5 13 1577 2133 135 28 97.008537 cartons5 1 2 3 5 14 1727 2128 57 33 96.640457 for5 1 2 3 5 15 1798 2132 58 29 97.008247 ten4 1 2 3 6 0 546 2181 1309 61 -1 5 1 2 3 6 1 546 2193 103 36 96.047478 cents,5 1 2 3 6 2 666 2187 110 32 96.047478 which5 1 2 3 6 3 794 2196 86 46 96.981712 gave5 1 2 3 6 4 895 2185 34 32 84.492310 A5 1 2 3 6 5 947 2184 72 32 54.349670 &P5 1 2 3 6 6 1025 2177 18 52 96.780952 a5 1 2 3 6 7 1072 2193 94 32 96.371613 gross5 1 2 3 6 8 1183 2182 136 42 96.169395 margins 1 2 3 6 9 1336 2181 38 33 96.873955 of5 1 2 3 6 10 1391 2184 175 29 96.397835 seventeen5 1 2 3 6 11 1583 2184 92 28 96.611458 cents5 1 2 3 6 12 1693 2190 62 31 96.611458 pers 1 2 3 6 13 1771 2189 84 30 96.603600 case,4 1 2 3 7 0 545 2229 1311 52 -1 5 1 2 3 7 1 545 2239 59 33 96.945061 thes 1 2 3 7 2 619 2249 94 32 96.507927 gross5 1 2 3 7 3 729 2237 135 42 97.002319 margins 1 2 3 7 4 880 2235 38 34 96.988670 of5 1 2 3 7 5 932 2235 57 33 93.198105 thes 1 2 3 7 6 1005 2233 227 34 92.077354 non-favored5 1 2 3 7 7 1248 2232 179 33 96.845596 wholesale5 1 2 3 7 8 1442 2231 183 42 96.692047 purchasers 1 2 3 7 9 1642 2230 68 33 96.736664 ands 1 2 3 7 10 1725 2229 77 33 96.197670 that5 1 2 3 7 11 1817 2229 39 33 96.813843 of4 1 2 3 8 0 545 2280 1310 42 -1 5 1 2 3 8 1 545 2289 56 33 97.013451 his5 1 2 3 8 2 616 2289 100 32 96.389999 retails 1 2 3 8 3 732 2292 167 28 96.721069 customers 1 2 3 8 4 914 2285 175 33 96.261261 combined5 1 2 3 8 5 1105 2284 115 33 96.360832 would5 1 2 3 8 6 1236 2283 51 33 93.459084 be5 1 2 3 8 7 1291 2282 145 33 93.459084 reduced5 1 2 3 8 8 1452 2286 35 28 96.714134 to5 1 2 3 8 9 1504 2281 109 33 96.937332 either5 1 2 3 8 10 1627 2280 121 33 96.941597 twelve5 1 2 3 8 11 1764 2283 91 29 96.822655 cents4 1 2 3 9 0 546 2329 1310 51 -1 5 1 2 3 9 1 546 2348 39 24 96.744026 or5 1 2 3 9 2 596 2350 99 23 96.744026 seven5 1 2 3 9 3 706 2342 91 29 96.751602 cents5 1 2 3 9 4 812 2349 60 31 96.992844 pers 1 2 3 9 5 885 2347 74 22 96.967926 cases 1 2 3 9 6 971 2335 195 42 96.471115 depending5 1 2 3 9 7 1177 2333 93 44 96.852127 upon5 1 2 3 9 8 1282 2334 58 48 96.852127 thes 1 2 3 9 9 1351 2332 157 43 97.017136 quantity5 1 2 3 9 10 1521 2331 212 43 96.573364 purchased5 1 2 3 9 11 1724 2342 37 21 97.012955 in5 1 2 3 9 12 1774 2329 82 34 96.935013 each4 1 2 3 10 0 547 2376 1308 60 -1 5 1 2 3 10 1 547 2391 109 32 95.694466 order.5 1 2 3 10 2 700 2389 104 40 94.685730 Thus,5 1 2 3 10 3 822 2388 57 32 96.403908 thes 1 2 3 10 4 895 2387 64 32 95.878761 five5 1 2 3 10 5 976 2391 77 28 96.292679 cents 1 2 3 10 6 1069 2396 61 31 96.983704 pers 1 2 3 10 7 1148 2390 74 27 96.280525 cases 1 2 3 10 8 1230 2376 102 60 96.023750 prices 1 2 3 10 9 1350 2383 270 33 96.444618 discriminations 1 2 3 10 10 1639 2382 113 32 96.519104 would5 1 2 3 10 11 1768 2381 87 32 96.519104 have4 1 2 3 11 0 546 2433 1310 46 -1 5 1 2 3 11 1 546 2441 143 32 96.112167 allowed5 1 2 3 11 2 703 2440 34 32 92.754082 A5 1 2 3 11 3 754 2441 26 30 92.546478 &5 1 2 3 11 4 796 2438 28 31 92.972610 P5 1 2 3 11 5 841 2450 19 20 95.382034 a5 1 2 3 11 6 875 2440 40 30 95.382034 415 1 2 3 11 7 932 2441 138 38 95.548080 percent5 1 2 3 11 8 1084 2436 114 40 85.495605 larger.5 1 2 3 11 9 1214 2441 93 35 85.495605 gross5 1 2 3 11 10 1323 2433 134 43 96.815727 margins 1 2 3 11 11 1474 2433 67 32 96.785240 ands 1 2 3 11 12 1557 2433 57 32 96.529854 thes 1 2 3 11 13 1630 2437 56 27 96.202736 tens 1 2 3 11 14 1703 2436 76 28 96.202736 cents 1 2 3 11 15 1794 2442 62 31 96.811150 per4 1 2 3 12 0 546 2482 1310 50 -1 5 1 2 3 12 1 546 2501 75 23 96.729889 cases 1 2 3 12 2 642 2490 93 42 96.670731 prices 1 2 3 12 3 754 2487 272 34 96.762222 discriminations 1 2 3 12 4 1045 2487 114 31 96.410378 would5 1 2 3 12 5 1178 2487 87 31 96.874306 have5 1 2 3 12 6 1286 2485 141 32 96.548294 allowed5 1 2 3 12 7 1447 2485 33 30 92.630302 A5 1 2 3 12 8 1500 2485 34 30 92.630302 &5 1 2 3 12 9 1548 2482 31 31 93.142052 P5 1 2 3 12 10 1598 2494 19 21 96.474144 a5 1 2 3 12 11 1639 2485 60 30 96.995415 1425 1 2 3 12 12 1718 2485 138 39 96.714088 percent4 1 2 3 13 0 547 2533 1308 50 -1 5 1 2 3 13 1 547 2542 114 41 96.438652 larger5 1 2 3 13 2 676 2547 100 36 96.317482 gross5 1 2 3 13 3 785 2536 137 45 96.834969 margins 1 2 3 13 4 937 2539 85 31 96.391380 than5 1 2 3 13 5 1039 2533 113 36 96.758934 would5 1 2 3 13 6 1167 2537 86 31 96.758934 have5 1 2 3 13 7 1268 2531 83 36 96.161690 been5 1 2 3 13 8 1366 2530 153 36 96.538292 received5 1 2 3 13 9 1529 2534 49 41 96.856659 by5 1 2 3 13 10 1595 2530 195 45 93.227226 competing5 1 2 3 13 11 1805 2543 50 21 93.224861 re-4 1 2 3 14 0 546 2565 1309 59 -1 5 1 2 3 14 1 546 2589 118 35 93.254745 tailers5 1 2 3 14 2 679 2591 68 32 96.604408 ands 1 2 3 14 3 761 2590 66 32 96.604408 the.5 1 2 3 14 4 833 2565 198 56 96.850555 wholesalers 1 2 3 14 5 1042 2587 179 33 95.515167 combined5 1 2 3 14 6 1236 2597 44 21 96.947273 on5 1 2 3 14 7 1294 2586 73 32 96.728531 said5 1 2 3 14 8 1382 2585 91 32 96.281776 tables 1 2 3 14 9 1487 2584 67 33 96.870583 salts 1 2 3 14 10 1568 2584 75 32 96.973541 sold5 1 2 3 14 11 1657 2587 35 29 96.447662 to5 1 2 3 14 12 1706 2584 60 31 93.268326 thes 1 2 3 14 13 1779 2579 76 35 93.159569 con-4 1 2 3 15 0 546 2635 767 48 -1 5 1 2 3 15 1 546 2641 137 42 96.461845 suming5 1 2 3 15 2 694 2641 117 42 95.275856 public5 1 2 3 15 3 821 2644 36 28 95.275856 at5 1 2 3 15 4 866 2639 58 32 96.708023 thes 1 2 3 15 5 937 2649 90 22 96.708023 same5 1 2 3 15 6 1038 2638 93 42 95.804672 prices 1 2 3 15 7 1144 2647 35 22 95.804672 as5 1 2 3 15 8 1191 2633 39 35 92.170982 A5 1 2 3 15 9 1236 2638 27 30 92.170982 &5 1 2 3 15 10 1275 2635 38 33 92.820862 P.3 1 2 4 0 0 547 2683 1310 100 -1 4 1 2 4 1 0 566 2683 1291 42 -1 5 1 2 4 1 1 566 2692 105 33 33.778259 “Par.5 1 2 4 1 2 691 2693 47 30 88.515457 18.5 1 2 4 1 3 761 2691 73 31 96.041458 Thes 1 2 4 1 4 851 2688 223 35 96.306885 Commissions 1 2 4 1 5 1090 2687 89 33 96.844978 finds5 1 2 4 1 6 1195 2686 77 33 96.573074 that5 1 2 4 1 7 1287 2686 145 32 96.828041 because5 1 2 4 1 8 1443 2684 38 33 96.610130 of5 1 2 4 1 9 1496 2685 58 33 96.389626 thes 1 2 4 1 10 1570 2695 134 21 96.389626 narrow5 1 2 4 1 11 1722 2683 135 42 96.867241 margin4 1 2 4 2 0 547 2730 1310 53 -1 5 1 2 4 2 1 547 2740 150 36 95.966110 between5 1 2 4 2 2 712 2742 58 32 96.861694 thes 1 2 4 2 3 785 2740 165 43 96.996414 purchases 1 2 4 2 4 965 2737 92 44 96.780907 prices 1 2 4 2 5 1076 2726 52 61 96.780907 ands 1 2 4 2 6 1159 2738 57 32 97.017853 thes 1 2 4 2 7 1232 2734 107 34 96.887283 resales 1 2 4 2 8 1354 2736 94 42 96.947937 prices 1 2 4 2 9 1465 2735 37 32 96.994835 of5 1 2 4 2 10 1524 2726 235 61 0.000000 respondents’.5 1 2 4 2 11 1768 2730 89 37 0.000000 table 152 FEDERAL TRADE. COMMISSION. DECISIONS Findings 49 F.T.C, salt retained by respondents’ wholesale and retail purchasers who buy at respondents’ lowest prices, a price difference equivalent to one unit discount (difference between $1.03 and $1.08 per case of thirty-six cartons of one and one-half pound “Sterling” brand table salt) constituted a substantial difference in the price of respondents’ table salt of the same brand, grade and quality. The purchase price of respondents’ table salt was an important factor considered by respondents’ purchasers in determining their respective resale prices of said table salt. Respondents’ discriminations in price, therefore, had a tendency to cause respondents’ purchasers not receiving respondents’ lowest net price, both wholesalers and retailers, to resell respondents’ table salt of the same brand, grade and quality at higher prices than those at which those purchasers receiving respondents’ lowest prices resold at wholesale and retail.

Any appreciable difference in the wholesale or the retail price of table salt of the same brand, grade and quality has a tendency to divert sales. The Commission, therefore, finds that the effect of respondents’ discriminations in price (i. e., the unit discount for accounts classified as $50,000 purchasers and the unit discount or lower pr ices for purchasers buying in single order quantities of 100 “cases Or more) may be substantially to lessen competition in the line of commerce in which the purchaser receiving the benefit of said discriminatory prices is engaged and to injure, destroy and prevent competition between those purchasers receiving the benefit of said discriminatory prices and discounts and those to whom they are denied.

Par. 14. Respondents contend that their practice of granting a unit discount to purchasers classified as $50,000 purchasers while not granting it to competing purchasers of table salt of like grade and quality was legally justified, as this discount was made in good faith to meet equally low prices of competitors. The record shows that prior to the time on which respondent International Salt Company assumed direct operation of the sale of its salt products, its wholly owned operating subsidiary, International Salt Company, Ine., granted annual quantity discounts to certain of its purchasers. As early as November 29, 1985, it allowed two unit discounts to those of its customers in the Louisiana field whose purchases of salt for resale equalled $250,000 or more per year, regardless of the company from which such salt was purchased. Also, in the New York field, from prior to May 11, 1936, until at least July 24, 1986, this subsidiary granted a 3 percent discount to buyers who had purchased $150,000 worth of salt during the calendar year. On September 17, 1936, hav- ' ing received bulletins of competitors stating they were granting one INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. ETAL. | 153 138° Findings unit discount to certain purchasers classified as buying at least $50,000 worth of table salt.in a twelve consecutive month period, said subsidiary and respondent Eastern Salt Company adopted the same practice and granted an identical discount to the purchasers named ‘by~ their competitors’ bulletins. The practice of granting this discount was continued without change until June 1948, at which time it was abandoned. Thus, while respondents on September 17, 1936, apparently altered the amount of and the requirements for receiving this quantity discount to conform with what they understood to be'the pricing practices of their competitors, this fact is of no particular importance, since the practice of granting discounts on the basis of the total annual requirements of a purchaser regardless of from whom they were purchased was employed by respondents or their wholly owned subsidiaries prior to that date. Contrary to respondents’ contention, the price differences resulting from the granting of these discounts to some but not all of the respondents’ competing customers were not the consequence of departures from a non-discriminatory pricing scale which were made to meet lower prices of competitive sellers, but represented only the continued application of the discriminatory pricing standard previously adopted by respondents and used by them since November 1935. Moreover, despite the fact that the illegal nature of this discount was brought to the attention of respondents by the Commission’s complaint in 1940, there is no evidence that respondents made any attempt to eliminate or lessen the amount of this discrimination until 1948. Respondents, in such circumstances, cannot be said to have acted “in good faith” within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the statute.

After careful consideration of all of the facts, the Commission is of the opinion, and finds, that respondents have not shown that their discriminatory prices accorded the recipients of this discount were lower prices made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor. ;

Par. 15. Respondents further contend that both the $50,000 purchaser discount and the lower price on single order purchases of table salt in quantities of 100 cases or more made only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery of said salt resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such salt were sold or delivered.

In connection with their attempts to show a cost justification for the differences in price between single order purchases of 100 cases of carton table salt and purchases in smaller quantities, respondents have not attempted to show any difference between the cost of handling a large order and that of handling a small order. They have instead 154 FEDERAL’ TRADE; COMMISSION “DECISIONS Findings 49 F. 1.0, combined all sales costs in the area in which this price discrimination was:in effect during the period January 1, 1944, through July 31, 1944, and divided it by the total number of sales made in this area during the same period. In this manner they secured the figure of $5.62 which is considered by respondents to be the cost of making one sale regardless of size and regardless of who the purchaser may be. Under this theory, the sale of 100 cases in two orders would cost two times as much as selling the same quantity in one order. Under this theory, also, sales in single order quantities of 100 cases would result in a saving of five cents per case or more as compared with the cost of sales in single order quantities of fifty-five cases or less. Thus, under respondents’ own theory, a five cent per case higher price would be fully cost justified only on purchases of fifty-five cases or less. Even assuming it would be proper for respondents to maintain this price difference if their sales in single order quantities under 100 cases averaged fifty-five cases or less per order, the record shows that this is not the fact. Since August 27, 1941, and during the period of time and in the sales area covered by this cost study, respondents refused to sell table salt in quantities of less than two tons which equalled a minimum sale of seventy-four cases of “Sterling” thirty-six one and one-half pound cartons of table salt. Respondents’ average sale of table salt in lots of less than 100 cases, therefore, must have been in excess of this minimum. Thus, respondents’ attempted justification by comparing the cost of selling in 100 case quantities with the cost of selling in fiftyfive or less case quantities is not adequate to justify respondents’ actual discriminatory pricing practices. Furthermore, inasmuch as the record does not provide a basis supporting respondents’ basic assumption that the sales cost is the same for all orders, respondents’ comparative analysis of their cost of selling in 100 case quantities or less is not supported by the evidence.

As evidence of cost justification of the differences in price resulting from granting a unit discount to those customers classified as $50,000 purchasers, respondents have presented an analysis of the cost of selling table salt in 1942 to The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company as compared with the cost of selling table salt to all of their other purchasers combined. By combining the costs of selling to all purchasers other than A & P regardless of the customers’ volumes of purchases, methods of purchasing or whether purchasing at respondents’ highest or lowest price, respondents have made an analysis which is incapable of establishing the differences in costs of sales as between respondents’ purchasers who received this quantity discount and those who did not. Furthermore, the allocation of certain of the costs in said analysis was made without sufficient record basis. For example, the allocation INTERNATIONAL SALT. CO. ET AL. 155 138... Findings of merchandising expenses was made on the assumption that the cost of each call by a salesman was of equal duration regardless of the purchaser. There is no record basis for such an assumption. Also, respondents’ contention that the comparative. cost of selling each of their purchasers receiving their lowest prices was the same as that of selling A & P is not established by this record. The Commission finds, therefore, that respondents’ price discriminations consisting of their discounts to accounts classified as $50,000 purchasers of table salt and their lower net prices to purchasers buying in single order quantities of 100 cases or more of table salt have not been shown to have been justified by reason of differences in the cost of manufacture, sale or delivery resulting from differing methods or quantities in which respondents’ table salt was sold or delivered to their various purchasers.

Par. 16. Respondents further contend that inasmuch as they have discontinued the practice of granting a discount to purchasers classified as buying $50,000 worth of table salt in a twelve consecutive month period as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Company, 334 U. S. 87 (1948), there is no public interest in an order being issued herein prohibiting this practice. However, respondents have made no contention that they have abandoned their practice of granting a lower price to purchasers in their northern sales territory who purchase in single order quantities of 100 or more cases of table salt. The amount of this price discrimination is exactly the same as the amount of the $50,000 purchaser discount. . Its effect on competition is the same. This practice of discriminating in price in favor of 100 case purchasers was also held to be illegal in said Morton Salt Company case. The Commission, therefore, is of the opinion that an order is required in this matter to impress upon these respondents the necessity of stopping altogether their discriminatory pricing practices. Par. 17. In the course of its business of selling table salt in commerce, respondent International Salt Company paid money to certain of its customers as compensation and in consideration for advertising and display services furnished by such customers in connection with their sale and offering for sale to the consuming public of table salt manufactured and sold by said respondent. In connection therewith, said respondent entered into “Local Feature Service Agreements” with certain of its said customers for certain specified limited periods of time. These agreements, which required the furnishing of certain advertising and display services by the customer and the payment of a specified amount by said respondent, were entered into by said respondent upon an individual basis with each such customer upon -156 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Findings 49 F.T: C0.

the request of the customer. Said respondent did not enter into, offer or make any effort to inform its other customers of the existence of, such agreements and did not make available to such other customers any payments whatever for advertising or display services in lieu of payments made under such agreements. Certain of said customers who were not offered or informed of the existence of such agreements and to whom no payments in lieu thereof were made available were in competition with certain of the customers receiving payments from this respondent under the agreements above described, in the resale of said respondent’s table salt to the consuming public. In determining whether or not to enter into a “Local Feature Service Agreement” with a customer and whether the amount to be paid for such service was agreeable to it, said respondent considered many different factors, including the type and quantity of advertising contemplated, the type of store displays offered, shelf position of product offered, quality of store, character of store personnel, location of store, cleanliness of store and many other factors. No specific terms for such contracts were set out, however, and the determination of whether such an agreement would be entered into with a: customer was made in each case upon the judgment of said respondent’s officials and after negotiation with an individual customer.

Thus, the payments made by respondent International Salt Company in accordance with its “Local Feature Service Agreements” to certain of its customers in consideration for advertising and display services and facilities furnished by said customers in connection with the offering for sale and sale of table salt manufactured and sold by said respondent were not made available on proportionally equal terms to many of its other customers competing in the distribution of such table salt with said favored customers. Par. 18. Respondent Eastern Salt Company did not make any payments for advertising or display services to its customers. However, respondent International Salt Company, of which it is a wholly owned subsidiary, made such payments available to certain of the customers of Eastern Salt Company upon the same basis as it did to its own customers, Par. 19. Respondent International Salt Company at various periods of time has also entered into “Store Display and Sales Service Agreements” with retail stores selling its “Sterling” brand of table salt to the consuming public. These agreements called for the payment by said respondent of approximately ten cents for every case of “Sterling” table salt purchased during a specified period of time by said store in consideration of its furnishing certain specified display services in connection with the offering for sale of said table salt during said “INTERNATIONAL SALT CO, ET AL. 157 138° 8 Order period. It was said respondents policy to enter into these agreements with every retail outlet of its table salt products in the United States, whether the purchasers were purchasing “Sterling” table salt from it directly or indirectly. Respondent made every reasonable effort to carry out this policy and to make the payments under this plan available.on proportionally equal terms to all of the retail outlets of said table salt. The Commission does not find the respondent’s activities in connection with payments made under these agreements to have been illegal.

CONCLUSION 1. The acts and practices of respondents International Salt’ Company and Eastern Salt Company in selling their table salt to certain purchasers thereof at lower net prices than to other purchasers competing with said favored purchasers in the resale of said salt, as herein found, constituted violations of subsection (a) of section 2 of the Act of Congress entitled “An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes,” approved October 15, 1914 (the Clayton Act), as amended by an Act of Congress approved June 19, 1936 (the Robinson-Patman Act). 2. The acts and practices of respondent International Salt Company in making payments to certain of its customers as compensation or in consideration for advertising and display services furnished by such customers in connection with the sale and offering for sale of said respondent’s table salt, under its “Local Feature Service Agreements,” without making such payments available on proportionally equal terms to all of its other customers competing with said favored customers in the resale of said salt, as herein found, constituted violations of subsection (d) of section 2 of the aforesaid Clayton Act, as amended. ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Commission upon an amended complaint of the Commission, the respondent’s answers thereto, testimony and other evidence in support of and in opposition to the allegations of said amended compaint introduced before a hearing examiner of the Commission theretofore duly designated by it, the hearing examiner’s recommended decision and exceptions thereto, and briefs and oral argument of counsel, and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that the respondents have violated the provisions of subsection (a) of section 2, and that respondent International Salt Company has violated subsection (d) of section 2, of the Act of Congress entitled “An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and 260133—55——14 158 FEDERAL: TRADE’: COMMISSION’. DECISIONS Order, 49 F. TC.

monopolies, and for other purposes,” approved October 15, 1914 (the Clayton Act), as amended by an Act of Congress approved June 19, 1936 (the Robinson-Patman Act): .

It is ordered, That respondent International Salt Company, a corporation, and respondent Eastern Salt Company, a corporation, and their respective officers, representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in the sale of:table salt in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from discriminating, directly or indirectly, in the price of such products of like grade and quality: 1. By selling such table salt to any wholesaler thereof at prices different from the prices charged any other wholesaler who in fact competes with said wholesaler in the sale or distribution of such table salt. 2. By selling such table salt to any retailer thereof at prices different from the prices charged any other retailer who in fact competes with said retailer in the sale or distribution of such table salt. _ 8. By selling such table salt to any retailer thereof at prices lower than prices charged any wholesaler whose customers compete with such retailer in the sale or distribution of such table salt. For the purpose of comparison, the term “price” as used in this order takes into account discounts, rebates, allowances, and other terms and conditions of sale.

[tis further ordered, That respondent International Salt Company, a corporation, and its officers, representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the sale of table salt in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Paying or allowing, or contracting to pay or allow, anything of value to, or for the benefit of, any customer for advertising or display services or facilities furnished by or through such customer in connection with the sale or offering for sale of said table salt, unless such payment or consideration is made available on proportionally equal terms to all of its other customers competing with said favored customer in the resale of such table salt.

2, Paying or allowing, or contracting to pay or allow, anything of value to, or for the benefit of, any customer as compensation or in consideration for any services or facilities furnished by or through such customer in connection with the handling, processing, sale, or offering for sale of said table salt, unless such payment or consideration is available on proportionally equal terms to all of its other customers competing with said favored customer in the sale or distribution of such table salt.

“INTERNATIONAL. SALT CO. ET AL. 159 188.0... Order It is further ordered, That the respondents shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.

Commissioner Carretta not participating for the reason that oral argument on the merits was heard prior to his appointment to the Commission.

Syllabus 49 F.T.C.