Export Liquor Sales, Inc. v. Ammex Warehouse Company
| Decision Date | 11 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19336.,19336. |
| Citation | 426 F.2d 251 |
| Parties | EXPORT LIQUOR SALES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMMEX WAREHOUSE COMPANY, Inc., and Detroit & Canada Tunnel Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Wallace M. Handler, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant; Lebenbom, Handler & Morganroth, Fred Morganroth, Detroit, Mich., on brief.
Elliott H. Phillips, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellee, Detroit and Canada Tunnel; Timothy D. Wittlinger, Hill, Lewis, Adams & Goodrich, Detroit, Mich., on brief.
Richard Ford, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellee, Ammex Warehouse Co., Inc.; Fischer, Sprague, Franklin & Ford, Detroit, Mich., on brief.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and EDWARDS and McCREE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a private antitrust suit for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The facts are not in dispute. Appellee Detroit & Canada Tunnel Corporation owns or leases a vehicular tunnel between Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario, and other property adjacent to the tunnel entrance in Detroit. Appellee Ammex Warehouse Company carries on an export liquor business. It sells liquor in the United States to persons about to enter Canada, and delivers the liquor to them on premises leased from the Tunnel Corporation beyond the toll gates at a location where travellers are irrevocably committed to foreign travel. Ammex has an exclusive contract with the Tunnel Corporation to conduct this business on tunnel premises, and for this privilege pays the Tunnel Corporation a certain percentage of its total sales. If liquor is exported in this manner, it may be purchased free of certain taxes and duties, and thus at a considerably lower price than in retail outlets in Michigan or Ontario.
Appellant Export Liquor Sales, Inc., apparently recognized the lucrative nature of this business and decided to compete with Ammex. Unable to acquire a tunnel location because of Ammex's exclusive lease, appellant secured premises near the tunnel entrance where it sold and issued receipts for liquor. Hired runners entered tunnel premises and delivered the merchandise to purchasers after they had paid the toll and committed themselves to cross the international boundary.
The Tunnel Corporation objected to these activities and brought suit in the Wayne County Circuit Court in Detroit to enjoin Export Liquor from trespassing on its premises. That court issued a temporary restraining order, and Export Liquor filed this suit in the United States District Court for damages and injunctive relief because of alleged antitrust violations.
We consider, first, appellant's contention that appellees have violated the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13(d), because the Tunnel Corporation has in effect given Ammex a monopoly of export liquor sales in the Detroit Windsor Tunnel. It is doubtless true that monopoly is a consequence of the Tunnel Corporation-Ammex lease, but the Robinson-Patman Act prohibits only price discrimination in the sale of goods. The Act is not concerned with what we have here (assuming arguendo that the exclusive lease amounts to price discrimination), a lease of realty. See Gaylord Shops, Inc. v. Pittsburgh Miracle Mile Town & Country Shopping Center, Inc., 219 F.Supp. 400 (W.D.Pa.1963). We agree that the Robinson-Patman count was properly dismissed.
Appellant also alleges that appellees' conduct violates the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. This contention is untenable in view of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rea v. Ford Motor Company, Civ. A. No. 67-286.
...leasing and conveyances of real estate are not a violation of Robinson-Patman as charged by plaintiffs: Export Liquor Sales, Inc. v. Ammex Warehouse Co., 426 F.2d 251 (6th Cir. 1970). Financial advantages derived by advancing large amounts of money to a factory store dealership also did not......
-
Byars v. Bluff City News Co., Inc.
...supra.39 Cases such as Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 199 U.S. 279, 26 S.Ct. 91, 50 L.Ed. 192 (1905) and Export Liquor Sales, Inc. v. Ammex Warehouse Co., 426 F.2d 251 (6th Cir. 1970), Cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1000, 91 S.Ct. 460, 27 L.Ed.2d 451 (1971), are distinguishable. Those cases upheld th......
-
Southern Pac. Com. Co. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
...Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 199 U.S. 279, 294, 26 S.Ct. 91, 94, 50 L.Ed. 192 (1905). See also Export Liquor Sales, Inc. v. Ammex Warehouse Co., 426 F.2d 251, 253 (6th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1000, 91 S.Ct. 460, 27 L.Ed.2d 451 (1971) ("under the Donovan holding, the defendant may ......
-
Ferguson v. Greater Pocatello Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
...them is shown) (citing Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 199 U.S. 279, 26 S.Ct. 91, 50 L.Ed. 192 (1905)); Export Liquor Sales, Inc. v. Ammex Warehouse Co., 426 F.2d 251, 252-53 (6th Cir.1970) (same) (citing cases), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1000, 91 S.Ct. 460, 27 L.Ed.2d 451 (1971); Parmelee Transp......
-
Table of Cases
...Cir. 1966), 61, 62, 63, 90 Ervin v. Amoco Oil Co., 885 P.2d 246 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994), 142, 174 Export Liquor Sales v. Ammex Warehouse, 426 F.2d 251 (6th Cir. 1985), 24 292 Price Discrimination Handbook F Fairmont Foods Co. v. Burgum, 81 N.W.2d 639 (N.D. 1957), 180 Falls City Industries v. ......
-
Pricing Issues
...nature of the transaction to determine whether it is subject to the Act. 151 142. See, e.g. , Export Liquor Sales v. Ammex Warehouse Co., 426 F.2d 251, 252 (6th Cir. 1970) (claim under § 2(d)). 143. See, e.g. , Med. Supply Chain v. Gen. Elec. Co., 144 F. App’x 708, 715 (10th Cir. 2005) (not......
-
Table of Cases
...906 (11th Cir. 1989), 124 Euromodas, Inc. v. Zanella, Ltd., 368 F.3d 11 (lst Cir. 2004), 49 Export Liquor Sales v. Ammex Warehouse Co., 426 F.2d 251 (6th Cir. 1970), 81 Exquisite Form Brassiere v. FTC, 301 F.2d 499 (D.C. Cir. 1961), 96 Ezzo’s Invs. v. Royal Beauty Supply, 243 F.3d 980 (6th ......
-
Robinson-Patman Act
...742 F.2d 1184, 1192 (9th Cir. 1984) (exchange of tangible products between manufacturers); Export Liquor Sales, v. Ammex Warehouse Co., 426 F.2d 251, 252 (6th Cir. 1970) (lease of real property). Transactions involving a single entity or enterprise are not considered qualifying sales to pur......