Term
|
Definition
Statute: Clayton § 4
SCOTUS rejected as a matter of law the defense that indirect purchasers, rather than direct purchasers, were the parties injured by the antitrust violation.
SCOTUS rejected "passing on" defense to Clayton § 4
Reason: unwillingness to complicate; violators more likely to keep fruits of unlawful behaviour because indirect purchasers are less likely to know/sue |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Statute: Clayton § 4
Indirect purchasers may NOT sue on a theory of "passing on"
Reason: fair to both plaintiff and defendant (Hannover Shoe); consistent judicial construction that the direct purchaser is the injured party of the antitrust violation
*Some states have repealed Illinois Brick by statute |
|
|
Term
| Brunswick v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Matic |
|
Definition
Statute: Clayton § 7
Preserving competition cannot be a violation of antitrust law, even though the way in which competition was preserved was an injury to plaintiff that might otherwise be an antitrust violation
Reason: consumers protection before competitor protection (bad reasoning now); plaintiff must have an "antitrust injury" and be the type of harm that antitrust laws were designed to prevent |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Statute: Clayton § 7
McCready had standing as a subscriber to Blue Shield and suffered an antitrust injury from a boycott arrangement between Blue Shield and psychiatrists against psychologists.
Reason: the injury was of the type Congress sought to redress |
|
|
Term
| Associated General Contractors |
|
Definition
| The injury was too remote for a union who sued a contractors' association when the association told landowners that unionized labor would increase costs. |
|
|
Term
| Chicago Board of Trade (1918) |
|
Definition
Statute: Sherman § 1
SCOTUS's Rule of Reason did not condemn the "call rule" established by the Board of the grain exchange, because the rule forced all competitors into an atmosphere where relevant information was equally available to all.
Reason: under "call rule" the members were required to trade at closing price of last exchange day, which lowered the risk of unfair competition and leveled the playing field |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Statute: Sherman § 1
Price-fixing is said to be "naked" when it is unaccompanied by any joint-venture or other integration of participants' business activities and is PER SE illegal.
Reason: The agreement among business making up 80% to fix and maintain prices (as well as ban the sale of "seconds") violates antitrust laws regardless of the reasonableness of the prices |
|
|
