Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corporation, 5292.
Citation | 80 F.2d 641 |
Decision Date | 19 December 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 5292.,5292. |
Parties | PICK MFG. CO. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Before SPARKS and ALSCHULER, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
Carl B. Rix, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellants.
Henry S. Rademacher and Thomas F. Howe, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree dismissing for want of equity a bill of complaint alleging violation of the provisions, particularly section 3, of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 14.
Appellant manufactures and sells replacement parts for various kinds of automobiles, including those manufactured and sold by General Motors Corporation and its subsidiaries. General Motors manufactures, and its subsidiaries, the Buick Motor Company and Chevrolet Motor Company, sell automobiles. They also manufacture, and have manufactured by others, according to specification, and sell repair and replacement parts for such automobiles. Certain other subsidiaries make and sell to the trade, generally, replacement parts for cars other than those built by General Motors. In the sale of such parts, therefore, appellant and appellees are competitors.
Each contract of the Chevrolet Motor Company with its distributor of, or dealer in, Chevrolet cars and replacement parts contains substantially the following:
The contract of the Buick Company is to the same effect.
Appellant contends that the inevitable effect of these provisions is to prevent dealers in General Motors cars and replacement parts from purchasing and using for General Motors cars replacement parts manufactured by appellant and other independent makers of such parts; that competition in the sale of replacement parts is and will be thereby substantially lessened and decreased; and that, therefore, the contractual provisions are in violation of the Clayton Act.
Appellees deny that the effect of the contractual provisions aforesaid is or will be to lessen competition in the sale of replacement parts, or that any monopoly was attempted or intended or has, in fact, resulted or will result.
It appears in evidence that General Motors gives the purchaser of each of its cars a warranty against defects in material and workmanship for a period of 90 days, or until the vehicle has been driven 4,000 miles, whichever event shall first occur, and that the warranty does not apply to any vehicle which shall have been repaired or altered so as, in the judgment of the manufacturers, to affect its stability and reliability. Appellees contend and the trial court found that the provisions in the agreements with dealers complained of are, therefore, reasonable and necessary to further and protect their business as well as the interests of buyers of cars of their manufacture.
The District Court said:
In the restatement of the law of contracts of the American Law Institute, c. 18, § 516, p. 1001, the legal effect of the Clayton Act is simply defined as follows: "* * * If a seller * * * is engaged in interstate commerce it is illegal to sell or to lease on the condition or agreement that the purchaser or lessee shall not use or deal in the goods of a competitor if the effect of the agreement will be to lessen competition substantially."
With this statement we are in accord, and the cases relied upon by appellant, we believe, support the same and do not negative validity of the contractual provisions now under consideration.
Thus, in Lord v. Radio Corporation (D.C.) 24 F.(2d) 565, affirmed (C.C.A.) 28 F.(2d) 257, certiorari denied, 278 U.S. 648, 49 S.Ct. 83, 73 L.Ed. 560, Radio Corporation was the manufacturer of a patented circuit for radios. It granted to competing manufacturers of radios, licenses to manufacture these circuits, with the condition that the competing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Standard Oil Co.
...1560, 91 L.Ed. 2010); Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corporation, 1936, 299 U.S. 3, 57 S. Ct. 1, 81 L.Ed. 4; Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corporation, 1935, 7 Cir., 80 F.2d 641; Boro Hall Corporation v. General Motors Corporation, 1942, 2 Cir., 124 F.2d 822; International Salt Co. v. Un......
-
Jefferson Parish Hospital District No v. Hyde
...the tying product if failure to use the tied product in conjunction with it may cause it to misfunction. [citing Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 80 F.2d 641 (CA 7 1935), aff'd, 299 U.S. 3, 57 S.Ct. 1, 81 L.Ed 4 (1936) ] . . . And, if the tied and tying products are functionally relat......
-
General Business Services, Inc. v. Rouse
...Fried Chicken v. Diversified Packaging Co., supra; Susser v. Carvel Corp., 332 F.2d 505 (2d Cir. 1964); Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 80 F.2d 641 (7th Cir. 1935), aff'd per curiam, 299 U.S. 3, 57 S.Ct. 1, 81 L.Ed. 4 (1936); Seligson v. Plum Tree, Inc., 361 F.Supp. 748 (E.D.Pa.1973)......
-
Standard Oil Co of California and Standard Stations v. United States
...of the consideration of such evidence, B. S. Pearsall Butter Co. v. Federal Trade Comm., 7 Cir., 292 F. 720; Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 7 Cir., 80 F.2d 641, 644, affirmed, 299 U.S. 3, 57 S.Ct. 1, 81 L.Ed. 4. Likewise bearing on whether or not the contracts were being used to sup......
-
Tying meets the new institutional economics: farewell to the chimera of forcing.
...requirement that purchasers of mimeograph machines purchase supplies from the manufacturer); Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 80 F.2d 641, 642 (7th Cir. 1935) (scrutinizing requirement that GM dealers purchase, sell, and use only GM parts), aff'd per curiam, 299 U.S. 3 (7) See general......
-
Antitrust Implications of Aftermarkets
...F.2d 429(9thCir. 1979);Heatransfer Corp. v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 553 F.2d 964 (5th Cir. 1977); PickMfg. Co. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 80 F.2d 641 (7th Cir. 1935), aff'd percuriam,299U.S. 3 (1936).SeealsoBob Maxfield, Inc. v. Am. Motors Corp., 637 F.2d 1033(5th Cir. 1981) (allegedtyingof big ca......
-
EEC Proposed Competition Rules for Motor Vehicle Distribution: An American Perspective
...Automobile cases before FortnerIIapplied a ruleofreasonapproach to tying issues. See Pick Manufacturing Co. v. GeneralMotors Corp., 80 F.2d 641 (7th Cir. 1935), affirmed per curiam, 299U.S. 3 (1936); Miller Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 252 F.2d 441 (4thCir. 1958).28 Fortner Enterprises v......