- 35 -
reduction. Petitioner offered rebates of the finance costs
imposed on a dealer from additional inventory, and also used
incentives to attract buyers for coaches with unpopular colors or
unpopular sizes and display models that had been driven to
recreational vehicle shows. Petitioner did not offer the rebate
up front to the dealer, but instead sold these coaches to the
dealer at full price and then would accept a lower price from the
dealership if the need arose. In this circumstance, there was an
understanding between Foretravel and its customers, the
dealerships, entered into prior to the sale of the product to the
ultimate user of the product. If the dealership could
immediately sell a coach at full retail price despite its
unpopular size or color, it would do so; if it could not, then
the dealership could sell the coach for less than retail with a
commensurate rebate to the dealership approved by petitioner.
The incentives generated by sales to high profile buyers, or
buyers who complained about the quality of a Foretravel coach,
also qualified as a purchase price reduction between petitioner
and the dealers. The reality of the marketplace would dictate
the rebate needed to put the product in the hands of the
consumer. If a high profile buyer offered the dealership full
retail price, then there was no reason for petitioner to reduce
the sale price of the coach to the dealer. The more reasonable
method was the method used by petitioner and its dealers whereby
petitioner would adjust the price to the dealer via a rebate if
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011