CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5520, 1992 WL 109620
...Roman & Ciro, Inc., a motor fuel retail seller, brought suit against a competitor retailer of motor fuel, Sixty Enterprises, Inc., seeking injunctive relief and damages. Roman & Ciro alleged that Sixty Enterprises was selling motor fuel below its cost, in violation of Section 526.304(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), of the Motor Fuel Marketing Practices Act....
...el below cost, unless the party selling below cost could document that it was doing so in order to meet the equally low price of a competitor. Only by showing proof that the low price was necessary to meet the competition, is a party entitled, under Section 526.304(2)(b) *236 of the Act, to sell below its cost....
...[5] Healthy competition *237 is valued because it increases the economic benefits to the public as a whole. In order to accomplish this objective of protecting Florida consumers and encouraging and protecting healthy competition by prohibiting unfair, predatory and anticompetitive practices, Section 526.304 of the Act prohibits refiners and non-refiners from selling motor fuel below cost, where the effect is to injure competition....
...for competition, legitimate price decreases are recognized. The Legislature carefully limited the restrictions in the Act to only those below cost sales harmful to competition and excluded "isolated, inadvertent incidents" of below cost selling. See § 526.304(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). [8] More importantly to the facts of this case, Section 526.304(2)(b) of the Act expressly allows below cost sales made in good faith to meet the equally low price of a competitor in the same relevant geographic market....
...and pro-consumer statutory scheme to address specific unfair and predator practices in motor fuel marketing. See 1985 Fla. Laws ch. 85-74. [2] At this hearing, the trial court also heard requests for injunctive relief involving similar violations of Section 526.304(1)(a), by four other plaintiffs against three other defendants....
...w cost sales statute did not fix the price of the merchandise, but only prohibited below cost sales with intent to injure competitors or lessen competition. Rocky Mountain Co. v. Ponca Wholesale Mercantile Co., 360 P.2d at 646. The plain language of Section 526.304 reflects that the right to set prices is left up to the retail dealer. The statute merely prohibits the unfair and predatory practice of selling below cost. By eliminating predatory practices harmful to competition, such as below cost selling, § 526.304 prevents viable competitors from being forced out of business, which in turn enhances the total choices available to Florida's motorists.
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27026, 2015 WL 997864
...been met. Accordingly, the Court assumes as undisputed fact that Sunoco sold motor fuel at a retail outlet below cost between October 1, 2012 and October 31, 2013, from corporate stores 2 in close proximity to Plaintiff. (See Doc. 53 at 5); see also § 526.304 Fla....
...like grade in the same relevant geographic market which can be used in the same motor vehicle, or of the same or similar items in combination with motor fuel of like grade which can be used in the same motor vehicle, is not a violation of this act. § 526.304(2) Fla....
...when fuel price was set with contemporaneous knowledge of other station’s pricing). Sunoco was meeting the prices of competitors within the relevant geographic market in good faith, therefore the pricing on these occasions did not violate the act. § 526.304(2)(b), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7355, 1991 WL 138897
...Notwithstanding the present legislative intent to the contrary, we are obligated to apply the statutory language as worded prior to the amendment. E.g., Johnson v. Feder,
485 So.2d 409 (Fla.1986); State v. Gale Distributors, Inc.,
349 So.2d 150 (Fla.1977). We also note that section
526.304 (1989), not alleged to be violated here, specifically addresses issues of retail level price fixing, prohibiting retail sales by a refiner “at a retail outlet below refiner cost, where the effect is to injure competition,” except where the lower price is established in order to meet competition. The legislature subsequently amended this section. Because we have not relied on it in reaching our conclusion, we need not address Phillips’ argument that there would be no need for section
526.304 if the state’s interpretation of section
526.305 was adopted....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...(1) The MFMPA
Under the MFMPA, “[i]t is unlawful for any nonrefiner engaged in
commerce in this state to sell any grade or quality of motor fuel at a retail
outlet below nonrefiner cost, where the effect is to injure competition.” §
526.304(1)(b), Fla....
...4th DCA 2015)
(“We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo.”).
The MFMPA provides that “[i]t is unlawful for any nonrefiner engaged
in commerce in this state to sell any grade or quality of motor fuel at a
retail outlet below nonrefiner cost . . . .” § 526.304(1)(b), Fla....
...Under the MFMPA, a “retail outlet” sells motor fuel to
the “motoring public.” §
526.303(14), Fla. Stat. (2019). BJ’s only sells fuel
to its members, who are members of the “motoring public” but are not the
“motoring public.” Thus, BJ’s is not a “retail outlet” as defined in section
526.303(14). Section
526.304(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2019), clearly and
unambiguously provides that “[i]t is unlawful for any nonrefiner engaged
in commerce in this state to sell any grade or quality of motor fuel at a
retail outlet below nonrefiner cost . . . .” Id. (emphasis supplied). Therefore,
section
526.304(1)(b)’s clear and unambiguous language does not apply to
BJ’s sale of motor fuel.
Legislative History and Canons of Construction
Even if we were to conclude that the term the “motoring public” is
ambiguous, ...
