Legal Document

485 U.S. 717 108 S.Ct. 1515 99 L.Ed.2d 808 BUSINESS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Petitionerv.SHARP CORPORATION. No. 85-1910. Argued Jan. 19, 1988. Decided May 2, Syllabus Petitioner and another retailer (Hartwell) were authorized by respondent manufacturer to sell its electronic calculators in the Houston area. In response Hartwell's complaints about petitioner's prices, terminated dealership. brought suit Federal District Court, alleging that Hartwell had conspired terminate petitioner such conspiracy was illegal per se under § 1 of Sherman Act. The court submitted a liability interrogatory jury asking whether there an agreement or understanding between dealership because price cutting, instructed Act is violated when seller enters into with one dealers. answered affirmatively, awarding damages, entered judgment for treble damages. Court Appeals reversed remanded new trial, holding that, render vertical dealer second dealer, first must expressly impliedly agree set prices at some level. Held: A restraint trade not unless it includes on levels. Pp. 723-736. (a) Ordinarily, particular concerted action violates determined through case-by-case application rule reason. Per rules are appropriate only conduct manifestly anticompetitive. Although agreements resale se, extension treatment other restraints be based demonstrable economic effect rather than upon formalistic line drawing. Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 36, 97 2549, 53 568, which held nonprice illegal, recognized have real potential stimulate interbrand competition; illegality needed effective protect intrabrand do significantly facilitate cartelizing. There has been no showing here different characteristics attend "price cutter," without further levels charged remaining dealer. quite plausible purpose restriction enable provide better services sales franchise respondent. also merit contention dealer's will so often follow from terminating cutting prophylaxis against maintenance warrants Court's rule. 723-731. (b) term "restraint trade" Act, like common law before statute adopted, refers list agreements, but consequence, may produced sorts varying times circumstances. Moreover, this precedents indicate pre-Sherman prohibited as sort made here. Nor compelled certain horizontal constitute fixing thus even though they did notion equivalence scope explicitly rejected Sylvania. Finally, earlier price-fixing cases consistent proposition requires setting 731-735. 780 F.2d 1212 (CA5 1986), affirmed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C.J., BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion, WHITE, joined, post, p. ----. KENNEDY, took part consideration decision case. Gary V. McGowan, Houston, Tex., petitioner. Harold R. Tyler, Jr., New York City, Justice SCALIA Court. Business Electronics Corporation seeks review United States Fifth Circuit 26 Stat. 209, amended, 15 U.S.C. 1, if express implied 1212, 1215-1218 (1986). We granted certiorari, 482 912, 107 3182, 96 671 (1987), resolve conflict Courts regarding proper dividing judged reason.1 2 * 1968, became exclusive Texas, area manufactured Sharp Corporation. 1972, appointed Gilbert During relevant period, primarily sold business customers up $1,000. While much evidence case conflicting—in particular, concerning "free riding" provision presale educational promotional providing inadequate itself—a few facts undisputed. Respondent published suggested minimum retail written obligate either observe them, charge any specific price. Petitioner's below respondent's generally too sometimes priced prices. complained number occasions June 1973, gave ultimatum would his ended relationship within 30 days. July 1973. 3 Southern tried jury. asked "there Electronics' cutting." Record, Doc. 241. length question: "The dealers cutting. Plaintiff contends furtherance desire eliminate price-cutting rival. 4 "If you find should answer yes Question Number 1. 5 6 "A combination, unreasonably restrains cannot justified Therefore, formed engaged . alleged evils still unlawful. 7 demands agrees so, manufacturer's App. 18-19. 8 affirmatively awarded $600,000 motion notwithstanding verdict instructions properly stated law. It damages plus attorney's fees. 9 reversed, erroneous, trial. "must level, one. distributor retain complete freedom whatever chooses." F.2d, 1218. II A. 10 Section provides "[e]very contract, combination form trust otherwise, conspiracy, commerce among several States, foreign nations, declared illegal." Since earliest decisions interpreting provision, we intended prohibit unreasonable trade. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. Board Regents University Oklahoma, 468 85, 98, 104 2948, 2958-59, 82 70 (1984); see, e.g., Standard Oil Co. 221 60, 31 502, 515-16, 55 L.Ed. 619 (1911). so-called reason is, "the factfinder weighs all circumstances deciding restrictive practice imposing competition." 49, 2557, 568 (1977). Certain categories however, dispensing need evaluation. said "conduct anticompetitive," id., 50, S.Ct., " 'that always almost tend restrict competition decrease output,' Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., 472 284, 289-290, 105 2613, 2617, 86 202 (1985), quoting Broadcast Music, Columbia Broadcasting System, 441 19-20, 1551, 1562, 60 (1979). See FTC Indiana Federation Dentists, 476 447, 458-459, 106 2009, 2017-2018, 90 445 (1986) ("[W]e slow extend analysis imposed context relationships where impact practices immediately obvious"); supra, U.S., 103-104, 2961 ("Per invoked surrounding make likelihood anticompetitive great unjustified examination challenged conduct"); Society Professional Engineers 435 679, 692, 98 1355, 1365, 637 (1978) (agreements their "nature necessary plainly elaborate study industry establish illegality"). 11 since Dr. Miles Medical John D. Park Sons 220 373, 376, 502 (1911), narrow restraints. refused restraints, specifically termination pursuant territory another. noted especially "departure rule-of-reason standard drawing." Id., 58-59, 2562. concluded shown 'pernicious competition' 'lack[ing] [in] redeeming value' justify illegality. 58, 2561, Northern 356 5, 78 514, 518, 545 (1958). Rather, found, competition, primary concern antitrust law," 52, n. 2558 19: 12 "[N]ew manufacturers entering markets can use restrictions order induce competent aggressive retailers kind investment capital labor required distribution products unknown consumer. Established them engage activities service repair facilities efficient marketing products. Service vital many availability quality affect goodwill competitiveness product. Because market imperfections 'free-rider' effect, these might provided purely competitive situation, despite fact each retailer's benefit greater none did." 55, 2560. 13 observed intra brand competition. First, long existed, "significant check" attempt exploit power. 2558, 19; see 54, 2559-60. fact, meet dominant incentive lower 56, 24, 2560, 24. Second, create perverse integrate vertically distribution, outcome hardly conducive fostering creation small businesses. 57, 26, 6. 14 our significant distinction That support reduce inter 'facilitate cartelizing.' 51, 18, Posner, Antitrust Policy Supreme Court: An Analysis Restricted Distribution, Horizontal Merger Potential Competition Decisions, 75 Colum.L.Rev. 282, 294 (1975). authorities cited how assist level (by reducing cheat cartel, could pass consumers) used organize cartels Antitrust: Cases, Economic Notes Other Materials 134 (1974); E. Gellhorn, Law Economics 252, 256 (1976); Note, Vertical Territorial Customer Restrictions Franchising Industry, Colum.J.L. Soc.Prob. 497, 498, (1974). Similar cartel-facilitating remains lacking. solicitous assure market-freeing frustrated related legal rules. Monsanto Spray-Rite Corp., 465 752, 763, 1464, 1470, 79 775 (1984), addressed evidentiary action, expressed "[i]f inference drawn highly ambiguous evidence, considerable danger doctrin[e] enunciated seriously eroded." 761, 6, 1469, eschewed adoption "could deter penalize perfectly legitimate conduct" "would irrational dislocation market" preventing communication distributors. 764, 1470. 16 Our approach question presented present guided premises Monsanto: presumption favor standard; departure facilitation cartelizing, distinctions; laws; formulated view towards protecting doctrine These lead us conclude most 17 tends output. Any assistance cartelizing distinguished minimal Sylvania, insufficient Cartels neither easy nor maintain. Uncertainty over terms particularly future, obstructs both formation adherence making cheating easier. Cf. Maple Flooring Mfrs. 268 563, 45 578, 69 1093 (1925); Cement Protective 588, 586, 1104 Matsushita Electric Industrial Zenith Radio 475 574, 590, 1348, 1358, 89 538 Without price, retains manufacturer-level cartel (since passed easily hold together retailer-level cartel.2 18 threaten dismantle who happens directed vast majority cases, extremely difficult convince motivation ensure adequate services, measure usually go hand hand. Accordingly, give terminates agreement, failure contractually obligated exposes itself claim cutter. result termination, initial granting requirement provided, attacked designed allow existing higher Manufacturers likely forgo competitively useful risk perhaps criminal penalties. 19 avoid difficulty invalidating those contain word "price," "prices" Such formalism As above discussion indicates, including increase characterized achieve just that. accomplish benefits identified point profit margin permits desired services. described want distributors earn sufficient pay programs hiring training additional salesmen demonstrating technical features product, 'free-riders' interfere." 762-763, 20 dissent erects more complex analytic structure, ultimately rests, same discredited premise function serve dealer-level Specifically, dissent's reasoning hinges perception "naked" restraint—that "ancillary" Hartwell. Post, 736-742, 744-745. But true, assumes, contrary Monsanto, discussion, agreement.3 From faulty conclusion what restraint, proceeds, entirely follow, therefore restraint. pause note addition producing think wrong case, introduces needless confusion terminology. Restraints competitors traditionally denominated firms restraints.4 21 "because [its] cutting" underlie simply incompatible motivated combined reality frequently possible discourage beneficial consumers. B 22 resting foregoing analysis, ignore common-law precedent constituted time adopted. pre-1890 dispositive would. statute, law, changing content well enacted. Gibbs Consolidated Gas 130 396, 409, 553, 557, 32 979 (1889) (noting English laying down contracts invalid "was condition things, state society, now prevail, [and therefore] laid regarded inflexible, considerably modified"); 406, 384 ("With respect trade, substantially modified adaptation modern conditions"); B. Cardozo, Nature Judicial Process 94-96 (1921). 23 adopted along dynamic potential. invokes itself, merely static assigned 1890. 53, 21, 2559, 21; 51-60, 512-16; McNally 483 350, 372-373, 2875, 2888-2889, 292 (1987) (STEVENS, joined O'CONNOR dissenting); Associated General Contractors California, Carpenters, 459 519, 533, 28, 539-540, 43, 103 897, 906, 909, 43 (1983); Bork 37. If today precisely 1890, evaluation legality (conducted apply) governed 19th-century notions reasonableness. sense out single chronologically schizoid "rule reason" evolves wisdom, forever fixed was. 24 Of course general embodied does lightly assume realities underlying changed, judicial perceptions error. relevant, therefore, ever here, necessarily prohibition. 25 With supra. Though early largely categorically impermissible 404-408, 383-85. plain, basis unlawful alienation. ibid. explained Boston Store Chicago American Graphophone 246 8, 21-22, 38 257, 259, 62 551 (1918), "Dr. decided owner movables lawfully contract fix product afterwards sold, retain, yet hold, project cause control movable parted subject owned another." course, hence alienation, found jury, rationale apply. 272 476, 486-488, 47 192, 195-96, 71 362 (1926) (Dr. apply agent of, buyer from, manufacturer). principal old recent precedents. (and illegal) levels, Catalano, Target Sales, 446 643, 647-650, 100 1925, 1927-29, 64 580 (1980) (per curiam ), improper require suffer fate. This 27, 27—as be, divide territories Topco Associates, 405 596, 608, 92 1126, 1133-34, 515 (1972), while not. Arnold, Schwinn 388 365, 390-391, 87 1856, 1871-72, 1249 (1967) (Stewart, Harlan, concurring part); White Motor 372 253, 263, 83 696, 702, 738 (1963). 27 follows two group boycott Motors 127, 1321, 415 (1966); Klor's, Broadway-Hale Stores, 359 207, 705, 741 (1959). restatement first, involved combinations—General Motors, 140, 143-145, 1327-28, 1329-31, level,5 213, 710, wholesaler Accord, 28; 378, 1862, 1865; 390, 1871, 702. 28 Third, contends, relying Albrecht Herald 390 145, 88 869, 998 (1968), Parke, Davis 29, 80 503, 505 (1960), already disagree. Albrecht, maker force maker's advertised 149, 871. aspects. Initially, hired third party solicit away noncomplying retailer. solicitor aware aim solicitation campaign [the retailer] price" 150, 872. Next, "undertook deliver [products] obtained solicitor. Ibid. maker, solicitor, illegal. 153, 872, 873. plain explicit adhere specified 29 Davis, wholesalers then gain "retailers' prices." 45-46, 512-13 brokered advertise combination. illegal—first, parcel contained 35-36, 507, organized competitors. 46-47, 513. sum, supports view, opposes it, Affirmed. KENNEDY 33 whom WHITE joins, dissenting. 34 concerns "vertical restraint." I shall demonstrate, results viewed "horizontal certainly "nonprice restraints" restraints," focuses attention, irrelevant importance "naked "ancillary landmark Judge (later Chief Justice) Taft Addyston Pipe Steel 85 F. 271 (CA6 1898), aff'd, 175 211, 96, 44 136 (1899). 35 language prohibits "every" trade.1 literal reading outlaw entire body private Congress interpreted light background, defended reasonable. recently dissent: 36 Rule Reason Mitchel Reynolds [1 P. Wms. 181, Eng.Rep. 347 (1711) ] testing enforceability covenants ancillary transaction, employment sale going business. Mr. classic rejection argument goods agreed-upon ." 689, 1364, (1978). 37 Taft's reasonable detailed He England types objection voluntary one's ability transact "One man disabled himself earning livelihood becoming public charge, deprived community labor. tended covenantee, beneficiary monopoly he excluded competitor, means exclude others." F., 279. contracts, compete business, period time, defined geographical area, considered carry otherwise procompetitive 280-282. difference "void" "nothing excuse restraint," 282-283, opinion's seminal discussion: "[T]he main purpose, covenant ancillary. inserted parties injury which, execution enjoyment fruits, unrestrained other. suggests protection needed, furnishes sufficiently uniform validity judicially determined. exceeds necessity void reasons: oppresses covenantor, corresponding covenantee; and, second, monopoly. sole object therein restrain enhance maintain seem nothing tendency monopoly, void. party, except vague judges much, principles political economy, men ought allowed lawful subserve partial permitted, reasonableness measured, policy foster." 39 writing Judge, universally accepted authoritative. affirmed dissent, repeatedly approval,2 praised respected scholar "one greatest, opinions history law." Bork, Paradox accordance teaching look closely character 40 helpful begin explaining why fit litigation. implications (1977), similar contractual accept qualify franchise. Typically, standards advertising, promotion, display, Sometimes classes customers—for example, directly take examined included "provisions barring selling franchised locations agreements." 37, 2551. kind, to, basic violated. adverse And, manufacturer.3 41 appear enter "exclusive" defendant true after terminated, represented market, commitment rights. right grant territories, change identity established territory, implicated. competing competitor promise receiving guarantee exclusivity future. exactly termination. 42 involve typical noted, record implicitly agreed maintained somewhat charging terminated. 1219 1986). not, depend evidence. For purposes existed willing maximize profits. seems situation during Houston. Hartwell, respondent, objected pricing policies. acted independently. Indeed, given jury's verdict, having violation received ultimatum, turn, culmination coercion stronger orderly system distribution.4 agreement. What simple naked 'agreement cutting.' Ante, 722. III seldom stark clarity appears exact determines are, clear decisive changed slightly. 46 Thus, hand, independently reasons own, policies, lawful. 43-45, 511-12, (1960). On equally three instead two, threatened dealerships "unless days," ante, 721, comply obvious See, (1959).5 two-party three-party independent decision. me, plain. joint fundamental jurisprudence.6 define boundaries consequences breed uncertainty businessman. 48 More importantly, speculating focus precise us, readily identify nature. Before made, unhappy wanted power "complained 721. Quite obviously, discontinue pricing, se.7 replace soon dealership—it appoint multiple dealers—its protected finding record, fits squarely category stifling 49 scholars characterize "inherently suspect."8 When responds enforce predetermined policy, evident.9 Professor Areeda correctly complaining prevent "horizontal" restraint.10 critical present—a manufacturer11—the manifest.12 50 identical comparable agreement—it employ "boycott" my controlled (1966). 51 disposes quickly (1959), concluding "both combinations." 734. suffice. Chevrolet discounting "[e]limination, collaborative discounters access Act," 1330, "inherent success substantial competition—a goal sought effected conspiracy." 147, 1331. Precisely case—the elimination method achieving cases—the refusal agreements—in actors conspirators. same-level dealers' other, dealers; cases—one seeking price-based today's end Motors—is degree. Both boycotts lack efficiency justification—they integral, ancillary, parts manufacturers' IV 52 troubling majority's attach weight value outweigh harm caused imposition reaffirmed affected competition.13 Not improve today, respondent.14 dispute horizontally dealers, violate "quite plausible" assumption, 729, avoided strict consistently enforced past. 54 Under theory indefensible agreements. At trial existence denied poor performance,15 hearing days testimony, defense pretextual. Neither questions accuracy resolution factual issues Nevertheless, fashions juries unable tell truthful pretextual defenses. opines "even cutter." 9. "plausible" hypothetical hard has, failed reason, objective provable admissible evidence.16 disposition exhibits little confidence process ascertaining truth.17 56 fails consider liable rare following proved: overcome high hurdle (1984). introduce "evidence possibility nonterminated acting independently." 1471. Requiring test own findings goes way toward ensuring succumb improperly liability.18 57 prove Proof commonplace litigation apprehensive, demonstrated times, Aspen Skiing Highlands Ski- ing 585, 610-611, 2847, 2861-62, 467 (1985); McLain Real Estate Orleans, 444 232, 243, 509-510, (1980); Socony-Vacuum 310 224-226, 59, 811, 845-46, 59 (1940); Trade 231, 238, 242, 683 (1918); Piraino, Case Presuming Legality Quality Motivated 63 Notre Dame L.Rev. 4, 16-19 (1988), antitrust, areas matters factfinders able distinguish bad good intent. 58 rebut tending cutter offering legitimate, nonprice-related reasons. 721-722, boldly characterizes "this restriction." 729. characterization surely oxymoron applied actually found. proceeds agreement." justification unacceptable. supported verdict. precision, instruct agreement's valid ancillary.19 61 purpose" hypothesizes salvation competition—"to agreement," type emphasized pursuit structuring behest care less product's promotion margins. stressed former, latter; referred 54-57, 2559-61, nowhere discuss permitting structure coercing essentially indeed way, thought, until mere result—at expense absent salutary overlay mind—would 14, total reliance "economic analysis," 735, understand why, context, trump arguably permit members "provide services." If, continue worthy rely pressures exerted sellers purveyors products—and faithful philosophy animated jurisprudence Pipe, produce wider gross margins retailers, self-interest marketplace reflects legislative 'The heart national faith competition.' FTC, 340 248, 240, 249, 95 239. assumption best allocating resources free recognizes elements bargain—quality, service, safety, durability—and immediate cost, favorably opportunity select alternative offers. Even assuming occasional exceptions presumed statutory precludes inquiry bad." 695, 1367. "plausible posited mischaracterized restriction" inconsistent underlies itself. whose "sole 283. V 65 imposed; issue.20 aptly explained: 66 "Since predatory behavior, doubt Act." Paradox, 334. 67 respectfully dissent. Seventh, Eighth, Tenth Circuits Fifth. Morrison Murray Biscuit 797 1430, 1440 (CA7 1986); McCabe's Furniture, La-Z-Boy Chair 798 323, 329 (CA8 cert. pending, 86-1101; Westman Commission Hobart Int'l, 796 1216, 1223-1224 (CA10 86-484. Decisions Third Ninth disagreed. Cernuto, Cabinet 595 164, 168-170 (CA3 1979); Zidell Explorations, Conval Ltd., 719 1465, 1469-1470 (CA9 1983). fear cartelization assertion possibly adopting Retail rare, usual presence 2559-60, assumed proved. Baxter, Viability Doctrine, Calif.L.Rev. 933, 948-949 (1987). prosecuted theory, find, possessed sustained namely, obligation contract. assumption. 739-741, 3, 744-746. wrong. market. Reynolds, (1711); Restatement (Second) Contracts 188(2)(a) (1981). obligation, but, enhances "enjoyment fruits." 271, 282 (1899); cf. §§ 187, 188 (1981) (restraint "transaction ") (emphasis added); (hereinafter Bork) (vertical arrangements supplying purchasing"). important erroneousness invalidity attachment obligation. views relies. Areeda, 1457c, 170 Areeda) (legality formal obligations assertedly protect). conceivable effects likely, likely—so 2562, "demonstrable effect." anything, perverse, encouraging inefficient provisions attaching attachment, "irrational avoid. 1470-71, apparently believes depends horizontal, 745-747, 10. talking, thing definition effects. quotes statement supposed 745—746, 10, 1457d, 174. contrary, Areeda's explain peculiar usage 168, noting (even Cernuto restraint) "appropriate capture interests opposed being served." associate terminological confusion. 746, 288. quoted passage says, facially coerced carte[l]" says say: effects, Contrary 742—743, 747, differ Motors; noncompetitors 330 (defining "boycotts" "agreements refuse deal"). forth provides: "Every Arizona Maricopa County Society, 457 332, 22, 102 2466, 2476, (1982); (1972); 1430 720, plaintiff sell. "As supplier's motive keep restrictions, learns 1440. "When acts pursuing strategy, However, supplier taken direction customer, becomes nature customer suppress utilizing supplier. although manufacturer, level." 168 1979). "is tolerated victim merchant destruction makes economy. Monopoly thrive businessmen, driving large groups." 710 (footnote omitted). Again, Adams' relevant: arrangement illustrated seemingly pressured recalcitrant automobile deal discounters, induced choke off violation, rejecting suggestion unilateral issue. So representative dealer's] direction, promote pro-competitive virtues here." Motors: conspiratorial special solicitude laws. closing eyes removal class traders. propose construe conspiracies sell, combinations put entirely." 148, 1332. Colgate 250 300, 307-308, 465, 468, 992 (1919). action" "not clearly courts." virtually ignores distinction. 728, discusses risks arising "with breach occurred, so. called attention "We wavered enforcement fixing." 347, 2475. plans motives manufacturers, thereby themselves conspire 407-408, 384. conspirators manner "[S]cenarios firm activity using deliberately confer adjacent inherently suspect. To typically, inflict self-injury, consumers buy." 938 "Termination responses reflecting greatly him latter compliance complainer's demand superficial resemblance Parke involved, key 'complex enforcement,' threatens abandon continues dealers." 1457, 166 Commenting nn. wrote: "That complainer weaken 'horizontal' characterization. complaint appropriate. implementing unilaterally chosen policy. court's implicit arose bowed will. 174 (footnotes 288 (1978): restraint—whether vertical, according employed operating places rivalry benefit. (This excludes only, industry, pressure retailers.)" summary plaintiff's facts. obscure. such? Let completely grounds non-payment bills. inevitable forbidden way. point-of-sale economies scale limit Notwithstanding limitations automatic condemnation. rights interest complainer, vice eliminating rivals succeeds territories. indulging preferences? seen, abstract. acknowledged vision optimal regard desires arise case." 174-175 "Let defer moment problems proof wish placate cease handling forced choose concludes hurts (considering lost, transaction costs replacement, spillover relations dealers) losing patronage. reverse. Colgate, controlling behavior. Here conditioning patronage controls concept parallel. very different. viewpoint, matter served. former seek stimulates excess profits, dampen hospitable efforts customers, manufacturer. "Of antagonistic. Like believe restricted increases strengthens unlikely thinks best. mistaken judge profits unnecessary distribution." 167-168 (citing 127 (1966), (1972)). mentions reduction 725—726, then: simultaneous stimulation Significantly, individual eliminated analyzed differently moderated retailers." 51-52, pages, pointed advance analysis. Along lines, "[e]conomists argued maintaining products." neglects mention efficiency-enhancing "redeeming virtues" manufacturer-imposed causes harm. commentator stated: "Intrabrand consumer, insure acquiesce distributors' themselves. countervailing positive (1988) H.R.Rep. 100-421, pp. 23, (accompanying bill H.R. Freedom Price Fixing 1987, House currently pending Senate; criticizing Circuit's restating "plainly unequivocally forms laws," "where exists cut supply distributor's policies") original); Departments Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Related Agencies Appropriation 1986, Pub.L. 99-180, 1169-1170 (congressional Department Guidelines "are guidelines treat when, suggest 'limited' restricting stating 'explicit prices' "); Report Attorney General's Committee Study Laws 149-155 (1955) (criticizing laws "throttling distribution"). jury: "Sharp, unilaterally, performance. Electronics, 'no' 1." Record 1587. 18-19, infra. Morrison, wholesale distributor, sued Biscuit, producer cookies crackers, Feldman, food broker, Feldman Morrison. 1431. "had middlemen, brokers [like Feldman] warehouse Morrison]." 1435. Posner's "Suppose decided, (illegal se) allocation sue fixing, never rescinded, show termination; maybe mask behind continued. Morrison's Feldman; indication assignment maintenance. Biscuit's Certified account, price." 1439 added). Posner prevail "a continued." faced conflicting determine justifications advanced pretext disguise duty decide determination." 270, L. Sullivan, (1977) ("A shorthand help affecting examine arguments pressed practice"). independently, 15, accompanying text, disputed, (Respondent contended reached requiring argued, though, invoke this.) argue instruction "it agreeing, shared dealer." 151. later instruction, 1599, carefully "[w]hat preponderance knowingly came mutual purpose." 1584-1585. 'yes' circumstantial "equally calculators." 148. objected, specifically, ground allows cared [Business Electronics'] dual termination." 1599. above, mixed ones. supporting intent invalid. Each contains distinguishes between, solely grounded antipathy implement 329-330; 1439-1440; 1223 proposes sanctions today: invocation situations.

Classification Label: 7