Document: 359 U.S. 207 79 S.Ct. 705 3 L.Ed.2d 741 KLOR'S, INC., Petitioner,v.BROADWAY-HALE STORES, Admiral Corporation, Distributors, Inc., et al. No. 76. Argued Feb. 25, 26, 1959. Decided April 6, Mr. Maxwell Keith, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., the United States, as amicus curiae. Moses Lasky, respondents. Justice BLACK delivered opinion of Court. 1 Klor's, operates a retail store on Mission Street, California; Broadway-Hale Stores, chain department stores, one its stores next door. The two compete in sale radios, television sets, refrigerators and other household appliances. Claiming that 10 national manufacturers their distributors have conspired to restrain monopolize commerce violation §§ 2 Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, amended, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, U.S.C.A. Klor's brought this action treble damages injunction States District Court.1 In support claim made following allegations: George Klor started an appliance some years before 1952 has operated it ever since either individually or Inc. is well equipped handle all brands Nevertheless, such well-known General Electric, RCA, Admiral, Zenith, Emerson others2 among themselves with not sell only at discriminatory prices highly unfavorable terms. used 'monopolistic' buying power bring about situation. business manufacturing, distributing selling appliances interstate commerce. concerted refusal deal seriously handicapped ability already caused great loss profits, goodwill, reputation prestige. defendants did dispute these allegations, but sought summary judgment dismissal complaint failure state cause action. They submitted unchallenged affidavits which showed there were hundreds retailers, within few blocks who sold many competing appliances, including those refused Klor's. From allegations complaint, from supporting motion judgment, Court concluded controversy was 'purely private quarrel' between Broadway-Hale, amount 'public wrong proscribed by (Sherman) Act.' On ground dismissed entered defendants. Appeals Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment. 255 F.2d 214. It stated 'a Act requires conduct public conceivably may be ultimately injured.' page 233. held here required injury missing 'there no charge proof any act price, quantity, quality offered affected, nor intent purpose effect change in, influence on, prices, * *.' Id., 230. holding, if correct, means unless opportunities customers buy competitive market are reduced, group powerful businessmen concert deprive single merchant, like Klor, goods he needs effectively. We granted certiorari consider important question administration Act. 358 809, 23, 54. 4 think clearly show type trade restraint harm forbids, defendants' provide defense charges. Section makes illegal contract, combination conspiracy trade, § forbids person monopolizing attempting part landmark case Standard Oil Co. New Jersey v. 221 31 502, 55 L.Ed. 619, read prohibit classes contracts acts common law had deemed undue restraints new times economic conditions would make unreasonable. pages 59—60, 515—516. cnst rued making 'the prohibitions more complete perfect embracing attempts reach end prohibited 1st section, is, attempt monpolize, monopolization thereof 61, 516. both sections, said, adopt common-law proscription 'contracts considered monopolistic tendency *' interfered 'natural flow' appreciable 57, 514; Eastern Retail Lumber Dealers' Ass'n 234 600, 609, 34 951, 953, 58 1490. recognized agreements whose validity depended surrounding circumstances. emphasized, however, 'nature character' unduly restrictive, hence forbidden statute. 58, 65, 515.3 As restraints, noted, Congress determined own criteria courts decide whether individual actually occurred. 63—68, 517—518—519.4 5 Group boycotts, refusals traders traders, long been category.5 saved they reasonable specific circumstances, 'fixed regulated parcelled out limited production, deterioration quality.' Fashion Originators' Guild Federal Trade Commission, 312 457, 466, 467—468, 61 703, 707, 85 949. Cf. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 392, 47 377, 71 700. Even when lower temporarily stimulate competition banned. For, said Kiefer-Stewart Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 340 211, 213, 259, 260, 95 219, 'such agreements, less than fix minimum cripple freedom thereby accordance judgment.' Patten, 226 525, 542, 33 141, 145, 57 333. 6 Plainly disclose boycott. This trader refusing another,6 even manufacturer dealer agreeing exclusive distributorship. Alleged wide consisting manufacturers, retailer. takes open drives products. deprives same available instances them terms whatsoever. interferes natural flow has, 'nature' 'character,' 'monopolistic tendency.' tolerated merely because victim just merchant so small his destruction little difference economy.7 Monopoly can surely thrive elimination businessmen, time, driving large groups. recognition fact consistently forbid combinations 'which 'tend create monopoly," creeping one' 'one proceeds full gallop.' International Salt 332 396, 68 12, 15, 92 20. 7 reversed remanded trial. 8 Reversed. 9 HARLAN, believing sufficient entitle petitioner go trial, matters set forth respondents' necessarily constitute irrespective what able prove concurs result. provides: 'Every form trust otherwise, conspiracy, several foreign nations, declared reads, shall monopolize, combine conspire persons, guilty misdemeanor Clayton 38 731, states, Any injured property reason anything antitrust laws sue therefor recover threefold him sustained named are: Corp., Radio Phonograph Electric Olympic Television, Philco Rheem Manufacturing Corp. America, Tappan Stove Whirlpool Zenith See also American Tobacco 106, 179, 632, 648, 663, where noted statute forbade 'acts which, inherent nature evident acts, etc., injuriously retrained 395—401, 378—379—380—381, 700; Radovich National Football League, 352 445, 453—454, 77 390, 394—395, 456. regard should contrasted Commission 719, 45(b), find 'that proceeding interest public' issues unfair competition. Klesner, 280 19, 27, 50 374 138. But cf. America 466—467, 707—708, See, e.g., State 1490; Binderup Pathe Exchange, 263 291, 44 96, 308; 949; 214, 261, 219; Times-Picayune Publishing 345 594, 625, 73 872, 889, 97 1277; Northern Pacific Ry. Uite d 356 5, 78 514, 518, 545. Compare Colgate 250 300, 39 465, 63 992, Schrader's Son, 252 85, 40 251, 64 471; Bausch Lomb Optical 321 719—723, 805, 811—812—813, 88 1024; Lorain Journal 342 143, 72 181, 96 162. court below relied heavily Apex Hosiery Leader, 310 469, 60 982, 84 1311, reaching conclusion. While language position intended statements must light defendant labor union. aimed primarily having commercial objectives applied very extent organizations, unions, normally objectives. Hutcheson, 463, 788; Allen Bradley Local Union 3, Brotherhood Electrical Workers, 325 797, 65 1533, 89 1939. Moreover, cases subsequent clear essential violation.

Category: 7