Court Opinion

ID: 9461188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:08:14.799894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:56.344499
License: Public Domain

MERRILL, Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in Judge Kilkenny’s opinion.
In addition to the facts recited by him I would note that the offer of equivalent brokerage was conditioned upon appellant not representing products which ap-pellee considered “competitive” with its tuna products; that the offer further provided that appellant would be free to begin representing competitive brands at any time and would nevertheless be entitled to receive equivalent brokerage for such time during the two-month period as it did not represent competitive brands.
I understand Judge Kilkenny to hold that the basic issue here presented under § 1 of the Sherman Act is whether, in light of the e'ourse of dealing between the parties, this offer of equivalent brokerage conditioned on this covenant not to compete was, as matter of law, reasonable or unreasonable. On this I agree with Judge Kilkenny that as matter of law it was reasonable.