Opinion ID: 385888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: tying or exclusive dealing arrangement.

Text: 58 The magistrate rejected appellant's tying arrangement claim, noting that Plaintiff simply fails to show the existence of two separate products. We agree. Appellant had simply misconstrued the case law concerning tying arrangements. The challenged conduct bears absolutely no relation to a tying arrangement. 59 A charitable reading of appellant's allegations indicate that what is being objected to is an offer to enter into an exclusive dealing arrangement. There was no executed transaction. 13 Although there are numerous reasons 14 which support the propriety of the grant of summary judgment on the issue, it suffices to say that Section 3 of the Clayton Act has no application in the absence of an executed agreement. McElhenney Co. v. Western Auto Supply Co., 269 F.2d 332 (CA4 1959); Leo J. Meyberg Co. v. Eureka Williams Corp., 215 F.2d 100 (CA9 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 875, 75 S.Ct. 113, 99 L.Ed. 689; Nelson Radio & Supply Co. v. Motorola, 200 F.2d 911 (CA5 1952), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 925, 73 S.Ct. 783, 97 L.Ed. 1356 (1953).