Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Buyer Liability Under Section 2(F) Of The Robinson-Patman Act, Douglas E. Ray Jan 1981

Buyer Liability Under Section 2(F) Of The Robinson-Patman Act, Douglas E. Ray

University of Richmond Law Review

Despite the fact that the 1936 Robinson-Patman Act amendments to the Clayton Act were enacted in an attempt to curb the ability of large businesses to coerce sellers of products into granting them discriminatory price advantages over smaller purchasers, only one section of the Act, section 2(f) which prohibits the knowing inducement or receipt of discriminatory prices, is aimed at buyers. The remainder of the Act is directed toward sellers. Liability under section 2(f) is generally derivative in nature, being based on a preliminary finding of seller liability under another section of the Act. Because of this derivative nature of …


A Re-Examination Of Sovereign Tort Immunity In Virginia, Edward W. Taylor Jan 1981

A Re-Examination Of Sovereign Tort Immunity In Virginia, Edward W. Taylor

University of Richmond Law Review

In a hair splitting decision on June 5, 1980, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in James v. Jane, that attending physicians at the University of Virginia Hospital are not immune from tort liability but affirmed that the state, interns and residents of state hospitals, and employees of the state still enjoy tort immunity. The court made a distinction between the sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia and its employees, and a governmental agency created by the Commonwealth and its employees. However, apparently not all state employees are immune; and not all employees of state agencies are subject to tort liability.