- 36 -
necessary, and then the dealer would in turn adjust the retail
price to the consumer.
The rebates offered to dealers when petitioner was in need
of cash also qualify as purchase price reductions between
petitioner and the dealers. Petitioner needed cash, and
petitioner had extended credit to the dealer. Petitioner offered
the dealer a rebate with the general understanding that the
dealer would reduce the retail price to the consumer. The sale
to the consumer put cash in the dealer's hands, which enabled the
dealer to reduce the credit balance owed to petitioner.
Petitioner's need for cash and the rate of sales at the retail
level, coupled with the price the consumer was willing to pay the
retailer for a coach, would determine the rebate needed, if any,
to put the product into the hands of the consumer.
These factors highlight why a numerical formula setting
forth the amounts of the rebates may not be practicable in all
instances. The fact that a dealer may receive a used coach as a
trade exacerbates the uncertainty, because the used coach must be
valued in order to determine the amount realized by the dealer at
the retail level. The product sold by petitioner is unique, and
the particular rebates needed to move merchandise into consumers'
hands could fluctuate to such an extent that the rebates could be
determined appropriately only on a transaction-by-transaction
basis. We conclude that petitioner's failure to reduce its
rebate policy into a numerical formula is not fatal to
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