Opinion ID: 874208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Idaho Competition Act

Text: Wesco contends that Ernest and APW conspired or combined with the employees to unreasonably restrain Idaho commerce by attempting to steal Wesco's customers and employees and to put the Idaho Stores out of business. Idaho Code § 48-102(2) outlines the purpose of the Idaho Competition Act: The purpose of this chapter is to maintain and promote economic competition in Idaho commerce, to provide the benefits of that competition to consumers and businesses in the state, and to establish efficient and economical procedures to accomplish these purposes and policies. Idaho Code § 48-104 then provides: A contract, combination, or conspiracy between two (2) or more persons in unreasonable restraint of Idaho commerce is unlawful. In Woodland Furniture, LLC v. Larsen, this Court stated: [Idaho Code § 48-104] requires a claimant to show a purpose to drive another out of business, reflecting the notion that unfair competition laws were enacted to protect competition, not competitors. Idaho Code § 48-104 strikes the balance between free competition and fair competition by offering relief only where a company can show a competitor's intent to drive the company out of business, rather than simply an intent to compete. 142 Idaho 140, 146, 124 P.3d 1016, 1022 (2005) (internal citation omitted). The Court then found that, although the defendant's actions were not commendable there was no evidence to support the claim that the defendant had an intent to drive the plaintiff out of business. Id. at 147, 124 P.3d at 1023. The court here found that Wesco could not maintain a cause of action under the Idaho Competition Act because there was no evidence that the defendants were engaged in conduct that would subject them to antitrust actions. This Court agrees because, while the actions of Ernest in seeking to hire the majority of the Wesco employees to staff stores in the same three cities may not have been commendable, Wesco's only evidence that the intent was to drive Wesco out of business was Howe's testimony that Ernest commented on taking P & E's business away from them. That evidence was not enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact.