502 F. Supp. 1354 (1980)
The orthodontic manufacturer claimed that even thought the dental manufacturer produced less then one percent of the item in question, it was the only manufacturer to sell them at wholesale prices.
- The court held that even though the dental manufacturer claimed less than one percent of the market, the courts recognized the possibility of a sub-market.
- The court held that summary judgment on the antitrust issue was not proper because there was a material issue of fact as to whether the sale at wholesale prices created a monopoly.
- As to the breach of contracts claim, the court held that the statute of frauds required the contract be in writing and while the writings in question showed an ongoing business relationship, they did not show a contract to breach.
- Finally, the court held that federal law governed the issue of damages and loss of goodwill was one method of computing an antitrust plaintiff's pecuniary loss.
The court denied the dental manufacturer summary judgment on the antitrust claims, granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, denied summary judgment on the issue of damages for loss of goodwill as to the antitrust claims, and granted summary judgment as it related to the breach of warranty claim.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.