CACI 3300 Locality Discrimination—Essential Factual Elements
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
3300 Locality Discrimination—Essential Factual Elements
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] engaged in unlawful locality discrimination. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1.That [name of defendant] [offered to sell/sold/furnished] [product/service] at a lower price in one [location/section/community/city] in California than in another [location/section/community/city] in California;
2.That [name of defendant] intended to destroy competition from an established dealer [or to prevent competition from any person who in good faith intended and attempted to become such a dealer];
3.That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
4.That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.
Directions for Use
The word “price” as used here should be read sufficiently broadly to include “special rebates, collateral contracts, or any device of any nature whereby such discrimination is in substance or fact effected.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17049.) To the extent the circumstances of the case warrant it, the word “price” in the instruction may be supplemented or supplanted by other price-related terms.
Business and Professions Code sections 17071 and 17071.5 create rebuttable presumptions regarding the purpose or intent to injure competitors or destroy competition. The Supreme Court has observed: “The obvious and only effect of this provision is to require the defendants to go forward with such proof as would bring them within one of the exceptions or which would negative the prima facie showing of wrongful intent.” (People v. Pay Less Drug Store (1944) 25 Cal.2d 108, 114 [153 P.2d 9].)
Sources and Authority
•“Locality Discrimination” Defined. Business and Professions Code section 17031.
•Locality Discrimination Prohibited. Business and Professions Code section 17040.
•“Article or Product” Defined. Business and Professions Code section 17024.
•Actual Damages or Injury Not Required. Business and Professions Code section 17082.
•“The purpose of the Unfair Practices Act (UPA) is ‘to safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.’ It forbids most locality discriminations, the use of loss leaders, gifts, secret rebates, boycotts, and ‘deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.’ It also prohibits the sale of goods and services below cost.” (Pan Asia Venture Capital Corp. v. Hearst Corp. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 424, 431–432 [88 Cal.Rptr.2d 118], internal citations omitted.)
•“Sections 17031 and 17040 are tailored to address the problem of a distributor, typically a retailer, selling out of many locations, who might use geographical price discrimination as a predatory practice against its own competitors.” (ABC International Traders, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1247, 1266 [61 Cal.Rptr.2d 112, 931 P.2d 290].)
•“As section 17031 is presently worded, we conclude that the smallest geographic unit it envisages is the individual store or outlet, not the individual purchaser regardless of location.” (Harris v. Capitol Records Distributing Corp. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 454, 460 [50 Cal.Rptr. 539, 413 P.2d 139].)
•“[T]o fall within [the] prohibition a seller must have at least two different places of business and must sell at a lower price in one than in the other.” (Harris, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 460.)
•“While, similar to other cases, damages cannot be awarded in antitrust cases upon sheer guesswork or speculation, the plaintiff seeking damages for loss of profits is required to establish only with reasonable probability the existence of some causal connection between defendant’s wrongful act and some loss of the anticipated revenue. Once that has been accomplished, the jury will be permitted to act upon probable and inferential proof and to ‘make a just and reasonable estimate of the damage based on relevant data, and render its verdict accordingly.’ ” (Suburban Mobile Homes, Inc. v. AMFAC Communities, Inc. (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 532, 545 [161 Cal.Rptr. 811], internal citations omitted.)
•The federal law most comparable to the Unfair Practices Act is the Robinson-Patman Act (15 U.S.C. § 13 et seq.); that act differs substantially from the Unfair Practices Act, however. For a discussion of this subject, see Turnbull & Turnbull v. ARA Transportation (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 811 [268 Cal.Rptr. 856]. One notable difference is that the Robinson-Patman Act requires at least two actual sales. Thus, mere offers to sell cannot violate that act.