2015 ORS 646.050¹
Establishing prima facie case of discrimination
  • justification of discrimination

Upon proof being made, in any suit or other proceeding in which any violation of ORS 646.010 (Designation and scope of ORS 646.010 to 646.180) to 646.180 (Illegal contracts) is at issue, that there has been discrimination in price, or in services or facilities furnished, or in payment for services or facilities rendered or to be rendered, the burden of rebutting the prima facie case thus made by showing justification is upon the person charged with the violation; but this section does not prevent a seller rebutting the prima facie case so made by showing that the lower price of the seller, or the payment for or furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser or purchasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor or the services or facilities furnished by a competitor.

Notes of Decisions

In ac­tion between competitors in Ready-Mix concrete industry, allega­tions of complaint that defendants engaged in "geographic" price discrimina­tion were not proved. Redmond Ready-Mix Inc. v. Coats, 283 Or 101, 582 P2d 1340 (1978)

Notes of Decisions

These sec­tions were modeled after Robinson-Patman amend­ment to Clayton Act and federal cases interpreting federal statutes are persuasive in their interpreta­tion. Redmond Ready-Mix, Inc. v. Coats, 283 Or 101, 582 P2d 1340 (1978)

Price discrimina­tion under Oregon Anti-Price Discrimina­tion Law may include buy-back of obsolete inventory and difference in credit terms available to competing dealers. Forster v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., 73 Or App 439, 698 P2d 1001 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

"Kickbacks" on school photographer contracts, (1974) Vol 37, p 49

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 341-354, 408 (1972)

Chapter 646

Notes of Decisions

Subject matter regulated by this chapter is not "preempted" by Federal Robinson-Patman Act so as to render this chapter invalid. W. J. Seufert v. Nat. Restaurant Supply Co., 266 Or 92, 511 P2d 363 (1973)

Whether an injunc­tion should issue when a court finds a viola­tion of the Act is a matter of discre­tion. State ex rel Johnson v. Interna­tional Harvester Co., 25 Or App 9, 548 P2d 176 (1976)

This chapter imposes no af­firm­a­tive duty to inform customers of rates in absence of request, but prohibits making in­for­ma­­tion about prices available to some customers and not others. Wildish Sand & Gravel v. Northwest Natural Gas Co., 103 Or App 215, 796 P2d 1237 (1990), Sup Ct review denied


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 646—Trade Practices and Antitrust Regulation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors646.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 646, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano646.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.