Burroughs Wellcome & Co., (U. S. A.), Inc. v. Weissbard
| Citation | 20 A.2d 445,129 N.J.Eq. 563 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | 129/427. |
| Parties | BURROUGHS WELLCOME & CO., (U. S. A.), Inc. v. WEISSBARD et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Syllabus by the Court.
In a schedule of minimum prices in a contract under the Fair Trade Act, wherein an exemption is allowed to physicians, dentists, veterinarians, clinics, hospitals and charitable institutions, held, such exemption does not violate the provisions of the statute.
Suit for an injunction by Burroughs Wellcome & Company (U.S.A.) Incorporated, a corporation of the State of New York, against Harry Weissbard and another, individually and trading as Weissbard Bros.
Decree for the complainant.
Gross & Blumberg, of Newark, for complainant.
Bilder, Bilder & Kaufman, of Newark, for defendants.
EGAN, Vice Chancellor.
The complainant seeks injunctive relief against the defendants, alleging that they have wilfully and knowingly violated the provisions of Revised Statutes of New Jersey, Title 56, Chapter 4, Section 3 et seq., and the amendments thereof, N.J.S. A. 56:4-3 et seq., commonly called the Fair Trade Act, through price cutting of its products.
The complainant is engaged in the production and sale of pharmaceutical preparations, products and commodities, bearing the descriptive trade mark, brand and name of Burroughs Wellcome & Co., which products are of a standard quality, and are sold in this and other states of the United States. It sells to wholesalers who, in turn, distribute and sell to the retail drug trade in this state. It established minimum prices for the resale of its products within the State of New Jersey. It mailed approximately 2,000 written contracts to retail dealers, the defendants among them, in the State of New Jersey, asking them to sign and execute the contracts, whereby the retail minimum sale prices of its products could not be lower than the amount fixed or mentioned in said contract. About 800 of the contracts were returned signed and executed by various retailers in New Jersey.
The defendants, who operate three drug stores in the City of Newark, did not sign the forms of contracts mailed by complainant as aforesaid. There was some evidence that the defendants, or their representatives, orally agreed in the early part of 1938 to conform to complainant's minimum prices.
The defendants did not deny the complainant's allegation of price cutting. They, in effect, admitted it. They claimed the right to cut the prices of complainant's products for two reasons: (1) That there had been general underselling by other retailers of complainant's products with the knowledge and consent of the complainant, and that the complainant made no reasonable attempt, in the circumstances, to enforce the provisions of the Fair Trade Act; (2) it exempted from its price schedule sales to physicians, dentists, veterinarians,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Elec. Co. v. Kimball Jewelers
...classes more or less similar to the exemption provisions of the price lists attached to the contracts. Burroughs Wellcome & Co., Inc., v. Weissbard, 129 N.J.Eq. 563, 20 A.2d 445, affirmed 130 N.J.Eq. 605, 23 A.2d 396; Burroughs Wellcome come & Co., Inc., v. Johnson Wholesale Perfume Co., In......
-
General Electric Company v. Hess Brothers, Inc.
...& Co., 1937, 122 N.J.Eq. 559, 195 A. 625, involved sales at a discount to a non-exempted group. Cf. Burroughs, Wellcome & Co. v. Weissbard, 1941, 129 N.J. Eq. 563, 20 A.2d 445, affirmed on the lower court opinion 1942, 130 N.J.Eq. 605, 23 A.2d 7 Cf. Morey v. Doud, 77 S.Ct. 1344. 8 See Burch......
-
Texas Co. v. Di Gaetano
...of the plaintiff's 1958 exclusion of commercial accounts from the scope of its fair trade agreement. In Burroughs Wellcome & Co. v. Weissbard, 129 N.J.Eq. 563, 564, 20 A.2d 445 (Ch.1941), aff'd, 130 N.J.Eq. 605, 23 A.2d 396 (E. & A. 1942), the court held that an exemption from the fair trad......
-
Upjohn Company v. VINELAND DISCOUNT HEALTH & VITAMIN CTR.
...the suit is predicated, and the analysis of the law which is applicable and dispositive. Accordingly, in Burroughs Wellcome & Co. v. Weissbard, 129 N.J.Eq. 563, 20 A.2d 445 (Chanc.1941), aff'd 130 N.J.Eq. 605, 23 A.2d 396 (E. & A. 1942), the Court held that exemption from fair trade prices ......