Opinion ID: 1363360
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An illegal tying agreement was properly pleaded as a defense in this case.

Text: In Butler Enterprises v. Vanlandingham, 264 Or. 414, 424, 505 P.2d 1149 (1973), this court expressly held (at 424, 505 P.2d 1149) that: In addition to the remedies available in the federal courts, a defendant in an action on a contract filed against him in a state court may raise the defense that the contract violates the federal antitrust laws. (citing cases). and that this includes tying agreements which may be illegal and which were described (at 424, 505 P.2d 1149) as follows: A tying arrangement is defined as an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchase a different or `tied' product, or at least agree that he will not purchase that product from any other supplier. (citing cases). It is true, as noted by plaintiff, that Butler did not involve an alleged violation of ORS 646.725, which had not then been enacted, but instead involved an alleged violation of the federal antitrust statutes. We can see no reason, however, why the same rule should not apply to permit illegal tying agreements to be alleged as affirmative defenses under ORS 646.725, a statute which embodies essentially the same requirements as provided under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 1). Plaintiff also contends that Butler is not necessarily inconsistent with Kelly v. Kosuga,  358 U.S. 516, 79 S.Ct. 429, 3 L.Ed.2d 475 (1959), upon which plaintiff relies in support of its contention that antitrust violations cannot properly be pleaded as a defense in an action for breach of contract. In Kelly, however, the Court expressly recognized (at 520-21, 79 S.Ct. at 431-32) that when the enforcement of a contract would necessarily result in an enforcement by the court of the precise conduct made unlawful by the Act   , such a defense can properly be pleaded. This case falls within that rule because plaintiff, in demanding damages for defendant's failure to list exclusively with plaintiff the lots for sale, would require the court to enforce the tying agreement which defendant contends to be illegal as in violation of ORS 646.725. We have also considered decisions by federal circuit and district courts cited by plaintiff, including Viacom International, Inc. v. Tandem Productions, Inc., 526 F.2d 593 (2nd Cir.1975). None of such cases is directly in point, however, and we do not believe that their reasoning is controlling in this case.