80. Sealtest's proposal was accepted in the spring of 1961, and Penn Fruit began to pick up milk in Camden in August 1961 and to transport the milk in Penn Fruit trucks to Pennsylvania for resale in its stores.
81. Pennbrook's proposal to Penn Fruit of October 14, 1960 was still open and under consideration by Penn Fruit when Penn Fruit accepted Sealtest's proposal.
82. Moreover, when Sealtest began to deliver milk to Penn Fruit in Camden in August 1961, Pennbrook was still negotiating with Penn Fruit.
83. Pennbrook's managing partner and its general manager both admitted that Pennbrook offered to sell its facilities to Penn Fruit, and offered to operate the plant for Penn Fruit under a management contract for a term of years.
84. This separate offer of Pennbrook was discussed between Penn Fruit and Pennbrook during 1961 and into 1962.
85. Penn Fruit advised Sealtest of this separate Pennbrook offer in the fall of 1961, and Sealtest believed that it was an additional threat to its business with Penn Fruit.
86. Also, Penn Fruit received an offer from Country Maid Dairy in the summer or fall of 1961.
87. Sealtest began to deliver to Penn Fruit at Camden because it believed that such an arrangement was the only practical and legal method by which it could retain the milk business it then had with Penn Fruit.
88. The prices which Sealtest charged Penn Fruit in Camden were the OMI distributor prices.
89. Sealtest's price to Penn Fruit was 18 cents per quart at Sealtest's platform in Camden; Pennbrook's price to Penn Fruit was 19 1/2 cents per quart delivered, or 16 1/2 cents per quart at Pennbrook's Philadelphia platform.
90. Sealtest's proposal was designed to meet the competition of Pennbrook and other milk companies for Penn Fruit's Pennsylvania stores.
91. The prices which Sealtest charged Penn Fruit in Camden were available to other wholesale customers of Sealtest.
92. Two other customers of Sealtest - Molish and Martel - also bought milk at Sealtest's Camden platform. The prices charged Molish and Martel were somewhat higher than the prices to Penn Fruit because (1) those customers purchased fewer products and the costs varied, and (2) the OMI quantity pricing did not permit Sealtest to charge prices as low as the Penn Fruit prices.
93. At a later date Sealtest lost both Molish and Martel to Martin Century and other competitors.
94. During a period between 1963 and 1967 Sealtest delivered milk to Penn Fruit, and during a part of that period to Molish and Martel, at Sealtest's distribution depot in Claymont, Delaware because the New Jersey Supreme Court held that these wholesale customers were not entitled to distributor prices in New Jersey.
95. The leased Claymont depot was similar to Sealtest's depots in Washington and Baltimore.
96. In 1966 OMI in New Jersey issued Penn Fruit a milk dealer's license and Sealtest began to process milk for Penn Fruit in Camden under a lease of facilities arrangement.
97. Sealtest began processing milk for Acme at Camden in July 1966, which milk Acme delivers to its stores throughout the Delaware Valley.
98. Prior to July 1966 Sealtest sold some products to Acme, and Sealtest entered into the processing arrangement to retain this business because Acme was going to build its own processing plant.
99. Pennbrook recently contacted Penn Fruit and discussed Pennbrook's attack on the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Milk Control Law to see if Pennbrook can obtain the Penn Fruit business.
100. Pennbrook has also discussed with Penn Fruit obtaining Penn Fruit's business if some part of the wholesale market in Pennsylvania can be removed from price control.
101. It costs a milk company less to deliver milk to its wholesale customers at the platform of the milk company's plant or distribution depot than to deliver it to the store of the customer.
102. When Penn Fruit began purchasing milk from Sealtest in Camden, Penn Fruit employees began transporting the milk in Penn Fruit trucks to its stores, whereas previously Sealtest employees had been transporting the milk in Sealtest trucks.
103. Penn Fruit was and is able to perform the delivery function at a lower cost than either Pennbrook or Sealtest.
104. Before Sealtest submitted its proposal to Penn Fruit it analyzed the cost savings involved to determine that the prices proposed were justified by cost savings.
105. All Sealtest's wholesale customers, whether store customers or others, are served by the same routes and vehicles and are part of the same pool of costs.
106. Therefore, in comparing costs all Sealtest's wholesale customers must be treated as a unit.
107. In its cost study (Exhibit D-23) Sealtest (1) computed its costs under its "full service" system of delivering to stores with its own trucks and drivers and performing in-store services of rotating product, etc. and (2) its costs under a "limited service" system of turning over the milk to the customer at the platform of Sealtest's plant.
108. The computation revealed the following savings, expressed as a percentage of the sales dollar or selling price:
delivery expense 14.4%
selling expense 5.0
general and administrative expense 2.4
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.