Davey Bros., Inc. v. Stop & Shop, Inc.
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | Before WILKINS; SPALDING |
| Citation | 351 Mass. 59,217 N.E.2d 751 |
| Parties | DAVEY BROS., INC. v. STOP & SHOP, INC. (and a companion case 1 ). |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1966 |
Page 751
v.
STOP & SHOP, INC. (and a companion case 1).
Decided June 7, 1966.
Page 752
Lawrence H. Norris, Boston, for plaintiffs.
George E. Lodgen, Boston, (Nathan T. Wolk, Boston, and Arthur S. Waldstein, Brookline, with him) for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, and SPIEGEL, JJ.
SPALDING, Justice.
These two bills in equity seek to restrain the defendant Stop & Shop, Inc. from advertising, offering to sell, or selling items of merchandise at less than cost in violation of the Unfair Sales Act, G.L. c. 93, §§ 14E--14K (inserted by St.1938, c. 410, § 1). The cases were tried together and final decrees, from which the plaintiffs appeal, were entered dismissing both bills. The judge made a report of the material facts in each case. The evidence is reported.
[351 Mass. 60] The evidence, which was largely uncontradicted, warranted the following findings. The plaintiff Dorey operates a retail market in North Wilbraham, situated just under four miles from one of the defendant's markets. In support of his allegation that the defendant 'is continually and repeatedly offering for sale to consumers items of its merchandise below the cost * * * to the defendant within the meaning of Section 14F of the * * * Act,' Dorey put in evidence five separate advertisements appearing in Springfield newspapers between November 30, 1964, and January 13, 1965. Testimony was introduced to establish the prices at which the defendant purchased or could have purchased these items, and the trial judge found that the products were offered for sale 'below cost' as that term is defined in * * * § 14E(a)' of the act. Dorey testified that this customers called these advertisements to his attention, that they inquired about his higher prices, and that he subsequently saw his customers in the defendant's store.
The plaintiff Davey Bros., Inc. (Davey) operates a retail market in Boston located within two miles of one of the defendant's markets. On October 15, 1964, the defendant published in two Boston newspapers an advertisement offering for sale fivepound bags of sugar at thirty-nine cents per bag, upon the presentation of a coupon and with any purchase of $5 or more. The judge assumed without deciding that the thirty-nine cent price constituted a belowcost offer for sale within the meaning of § 14E(a), even though the presentation of a coupon and a purchase of $5 or more were required in order to purchase sugar at this price. An officer of Davey testified that he heard comments by customers with respect to these advertisements.
The defendant operates a large chain of retail food stores in Massachusetts and elsewhere. Its pricing policy is determined by a three man group without whose approval no item may be sold below cost. While its policy is not to initiate below-cost selling, the defendant will do so where such
Page 753
practice is prevalent in the competitve market. In some instances the defendant offers the same items for sale [351 Mass. 61] below cost as are being offered below cost by its...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Gove
...Elementary rules of statutory construction require that each statute be interpreted as enacted. Davey Bros. Inc. v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 351 Mass. 59, 63, 217 N.E.2d 751 (1966). No portion of the statutory language may be deemed superfluous. Commonwealth v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard &......
-
Mone v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
...(1808). Libby v. New York, N.H. & H. R.R., 273 Mass. 522, 525--526, 174 N.E. 171 (1930); Davey Bros. Inc. v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 351 Mass. 59, 63, 217 N.E.2d 751 (1966); Wood v. Commissioner of Correction, --- Mass. ---, --- f, 292 N.E.2d 712 (1973). We have refused to permit the exa......
-
Twin City Candy & Tobacco Co. v. A. Weisman Co., Nos. 40287
...Cal.2d 108, 114, 153 P.2d 9, 13; Perkins v. King Soopers, 122 Colo. 263, 221 P.2d 343; Davey Bros., Inc. v. Stop & Shop. Inc., Mass., 217 N.E.2d 751, 753; Borden Co. v. Thomason (Mo.) 353 S.W.2d 735, 753; Rocky Mountain Wholesale Co. v. Ponca Wholesale Merc. Co., 68 N.Mex. 228, 235, 360......
-
North Landers Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Falmouth
...of the statute to be clear. See Chouinard, petitioner, 358 Mass. 780, 782, 267 N.E.2d 497 (1971); Davey Bros. v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 351 Mass. 59, 63, 217 N.E.2d 751 (1966). Section 81M imposes no such circumscription as North Landers urges. The adequacy of Sam Turner Road was properly c......
-
Com. v. Gove
...Elementary rules of statutory construction require that each statute be interpreted as enacted. Davey Bros. Inc. v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 351 Mass. 59, 63, 217 N.E.2d 751 (1966). No portion of the statutory language may be deemed superfluous. Commonwealth v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard &......
-
Mone v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
...(1808). Libby v. New York, N.H. & H. R.R., 273 Mass. 522, 525--526, 174 N.E. 171 (1930); Davey Bros. Inc. v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 351 Mass. 59, 63, 217 N.E.2d 751 (1966); Wood v. Commissioner of Correction, --- Mass. ---, --- f, 292 N.E.2d 712 (1973). We have refused to permit the exa......
-
Twin City Candy & Tobacco Co. v. A. Weisman Co., Nos. 40287
...Cal.2d 108, 114, 153 P.2d 9, 13; Perkins v. King Soopers, 122 Colo. 263, 221 P.2d 343; Davey Bros., Inc. v. Stop & Shop. Inc., Mass., 217 N.E.2d 751, 753; Borden Co. v. Thomason (Mo.) 353 S.W.2d 735, 753; Rocky Mountain Wholesale Co. v. Ponca Wholesale Merc. Co., 68 N.Mex. 228, 235, 360......
-
North Landers Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Falmouth
...of the statute to be clear. See Chouinard, petitioner, 358 Mass. 780, 782, 267 N.E.2d 497 (1971); Davey Bros. v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 351 Mass. 59, 63, 217 N.E.2d 751 (1966). Section 81M imposes no such circumscription as North Landers urges. The adequacy of Sam Turner Road was properly c......