As the definition given in the introduction to the law shows, the purpose of a buy-in contract is “a mobile asset.” Although the TCO system refers to the existence of a sale of a personal asset when a debt, economic or intangible asset is sold in instalments, it is not technically possible to speak of the existence of a futures purchase contract4. Articles 253 and following of the TCO also do not apply to intangible rate sales (brands, patents, industrial designs)5. In addition, Section 253/I of the TCO does not cover the execution of staggered work. However, an appendix to the transfer agreement entitled “Consent and Agreement” provided that Xerox accepted the assignment and “liberated the agent and undertakes to pay exclusive attention exclusively to the agent” for the performance of the installment sale contract. There is nothing technical or talismanic about the term “buyer.” “The term buyer simply means the one who buys, a buyer, a seller. That doesn`t mean someone who wants to buy someone who goes to the market place to buy it. Shaw`s, Inc. v. Wilson-Jones Co., 105 F.2d 331, 333 (3d Cir. 1939). “Further, no sale may contravene the Robinson Patman Act.
At least two transactions must be made to discriminate. Bruce`s Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co., 330 U.S. 743, 755, 67 P. Ct. 1015, 1020, 91 L. Ed. 1219 (1947). “(T)here must be actual sales at two different prices to two different real customers.” “M.C.
Manufacturing Co. v. Texas Foundries, Inc., 517 F.2d 1059, 1065 (5. Cir. 1975), cited Jones v. Metzger Dairies, Inc., 334 F.2d 919, 924 (5. Cir. 1964), cert. Denied, 379 U.S. 965, 85 P. Ct.
659, 13 L Ed. 2d 559 (1965). Thus, a sale at a higher price either an offer to sell at a higher price or a refusal to sell at any price is generally accepted not to break the law. Id. at 1065 n.11; Mullis v. Arco Petroleum Corp., 502 F.2d 290, 294 (7th Cir. 1974). See a.B.A. Antitrust Sec., Monograph No.
4, The Robinson-Patman Act: Policy and Law Vol. 1, 50-51 (1980). However, it was also found that an established customer who currently buys a type of goods at a higher price and is denied the right to purchase a cheaper property “such as quality and quality” sold to a competitor can sue under the law. See American Can Co. v. Bruce`s Juices, 187 F.2d 919, 924 (5 cir. 1951). We believe that the regional court misinterpreted the complainants` allegations. If we read the complainants` complaint and arguments, we have come to the conclusion that the complainants argue internally that they are genuine “buyers” of 800 devices and that Xerox has proposed to sell “similar quality and quality” devices, the 850 devices, at discriminatory prices.
Nevertheless, even in this interpretation of the complaint, we must conclude that the applicants did not rely on any ground with respect to 850 aircraft.