E & L Consulting, Ltd. v. Doman Industries Ltd. case brief summary
FACTS
E & L alleged that Doman had violated Sherman § 1 by dropping its distributor arrangement for green hem-fir lumber and giving Sherwood an exclusive distributorship arrangement.
HOLDING
The Court held that exclusive dealership agreements are presumptively legal and that E & L had failed to allege a violation.
DISCUSSION
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
FACTS
E & L alleged that Doman had violated Sherman § 1 by dropping its distributor arrangement for green hem-fir lumber and giving Sherwood an exclusive distributorship arrangement.
HOLDING
The Court held that exclusive dealership agreements are presumptively legal and that E & L had failed to allege a violation.
DISCUSSION
- A vertically structured monopoly can take only one monopoly product, thus allegations of a price increase do not allege harm to competition, because Doman could achieve monopolistic price increases without the aid of a distributor.
Analysis
- In the wake of GTE Sylvania, the court does not really worry about intrabrand competition; if it does not harm interbrand competition, it is not a cognizable complaint under the Sherman Act.
- There was only a single monopolistic seller and the exclusive distributor arrangement did create or engender any new monopolies.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment