Eastern Scientific Co. v. Wild Heerbrugg Instruments, Inc., 77-1286
Decision Date | 17 March 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 77-1286,77-1286 |
Citation | 572 F.2d 883 |
Parties | 1978-1 Trade Cases 61,926 EASTERN SCIENTIFIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. WILD HEERBRUGG INSTRUMENTS, INC., Defendant, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Robert P. Lynn, Jr., Garden City, N. Y., with whom Lynn, Perlman & Ledwith, Garden City, N. Y., and Deming E. Sherman, and Edwards & Angell, Providence, R. I., were on brief, for defendant, appellant.
Dennis J. Roberts, II, Providence, R. I., with whom Berndt W. Anderson and Roberts & Willey Inc., Providence, R. I., were on brief, for plaintiff, appellee.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL and BOWNES, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, Eastern Scientific Co. (hereinafter Eastern), is in the business of selling scientific instruments. During the period from 1961 through 1972 it marketed the products of the defendant, Wild Heerbrugg Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Wild), an importer and distributor of scientific equipment manufactured by Wild Heerbrugg, Ltd., a Swiss company. Wild terminated Eastern as a dealer of its products in February, 1973. Eastern, claiming that Wild had violated the anti-trust laws, brought suit under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
According to Eastern, Wild demanded that it not sell any of Wild's products outside its assigned area of Rhode Island at less than list price. Wild imposed no restrictions on Eastern's sale activities within Rhode Island. Eastern submitted evidence that it complied with Wild's policy out of fear that if it did not do so it would lose its dealership. The two companies disagreed on several occasions as to whether Eastern should sell below list outside of Rhode Island and Eastern argues that this eventually led to its termination. The practice Eastern complains of can best be described as a policy of territorial restriction enforced by price maintenance restraints. The district court instructed the jury that conduct of this nature amounted to a per se violation of the Sherman Act. The jury found in favor of plaintiff and Wild appeals.
Wild's first argument on appeal is that since the time of the district court's decision the law in this area has changed to the extent that a new trial is required. Because we agree with this position, we see no need to address ourselves to any of the other issues raised in this appeal.
A few days after the conclusion of the district court proceedings the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Continental TV, Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 433 U.S. 36, 97 S.Ct. 2549, 53 L.Ed.2d 568 (1977). Prior to that decision, the law relating to territorial restrictions was governed by the holding of United States v. Arnold, Schwinn and Co., 388 U.S. 365, 379, 87 S.Ct. 1856, 1865, 18 L.Ed.2d 1249 (1966); GTE Sylvania overruled this per se rule and instructed courts to apply a rule of reason standard in evaluating territorial restrictions.
A per se violation can be found simply by determining that alleged practices existed "without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm (the suspect practices) . . . caused or the business excuse for their use." Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 5, 78 S.Ct. 514, 518, 2 L.Ed.2d 545 (1958). In contrast, the rule of reason requires the court to analyze Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231, 238, 38 S.Ct. 242, 244, 62 L.Ed. 683 (1918). Determining that a practice exists is only the very first step in deciding a case under the rule of reason. Since the trial below and the district court's instructions to the jury were premised on defendant's conduct amounting to a per se violation of the law, the district court's judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the correct...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lawn King, Inc.
...apply the law as it existed at the time of its decision. 169 N.J.Super. at 353, 404 A.2d 1215. See Eastern Scientific Co. v. Wild Heerbrugg Instruments, Inc., 572 F.2d 883, 885 (1 Cir. 1978), cert. den. 439 U.S. 833, 99 S.Ct. 112, 58 L.Ed.2d 128 (1978); Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351, 361, 30......
-
Brown Transport Corp v. Atcon, Inc
...306 (1977). Eastern Scientific Co. v. Wild Heerbrugg Instruments, Inc., 439 U.S. 833, 99 S.Ct. 112, 58 L.Ed.2d 128, opinion below, 572 F.2d 883 (CA1 1978): under Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 433 U.S. 36, 97 S.Ct. 2549, 53 L.Ed.2d 568 (1977), territorial restrictions enforce......
-
Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc.
...territorial restrictions should be subjected to rule of reason rather than per se analysis); Eastern Scientific Co. v. Wild Heerbrugg Instruments, Inc., 572 F.2d 883, 885-886 (1 Cir. 1978), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 112, 58 L.Ed.2d 128 (1978) (resale price restraint having lesser......
-
Oreck Corp. v. Whirlpool Corp.
...a distributor of its products operates are to be examined under the rule of reason standard. See Eastern Scientific Co. v. Wild Heerbrugg Instruments, Inc., 572 F.2d 883 (1st Cir. 1978).It is undisputed that Whirlpool was not required to obtain Canadian Standards Association approval for it......
-
Table of Cases
...44, 188 ES Dev. v. RMW Enters., 939 F.2d 547 (8th Cir. 1991), 14, 104, 155, 156, 157 E. Scientific Co. v. Wild Heerbrugg Instruments, 572 F.2d 883 (1st Cir. 1978), 114 198 Antitrust Handbook for Franchise and Distribution Practitioners E. States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Ass’n v. United States......
-
Rhode Island. Practice Text
...at trial. 78 71. 690 A.2d 1351 (R.I. 1997). 72. Id. at 1352. 73. Id. at 1353; see also E. Scientific Co. v. Wild Heerbrugg Instruments, 572 F.2d 883, 885 (1st Cir. 1978) (applying federal law). 74. 32 F. Supp. 2d 491 (D.R.I. 1998). 75. Id. at 494-95. 76. Id . at 496-97. 77. 239 F. Supp. 2d ......
-
Territorial and Customer Restrictions
...(pass-over payment of 7% of sales, established as result of accountant’s study of promotional and servicing costs, held reasonable). 68. 572 F.2d 883 (1st Cir. 1978). 69. Id . at 886. ...
-
Sylvania, Vertical Restraints, and Dual Distribution
...question the firmly established per se rule against price re-straints"); Eastern Scientific Co. v. Wild Heerbrugg Instruments, Inc.,572 F.2d 883 (1st Cir.) (resale price maintenance held subject to theruleofreason when used solely as a device for enforcing territorialrestraints), cert. deni......