Court Opinion

ID: 9459099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:10:32.804728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:01.356643
License: Public Domain

MURRAH, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part):
I dissent only from so much of the opinion of the court which holds that .the Febco-Thompson Pipe & Steel Company contract did not violate § 1 of the Sherman Act, which condemns “[e]very contract ... in restraint of trade . ” The statutory language has been tempered by the rule of reason in some vertical relationships. See United *642States v. Topeo Associates, 405 U.S. 596, 92 S.Ct. 1126, 31 L.Ed.2d 515 (1972).
But Schwinn decrees that vertical territorial restrictions after title has passed are per se violations of the Act. In my view, we have just such a contract here. The majority seem to make the case turn on the vagueness of the restrictions on sales outside the authorized territory. They say that it authorizes Thompson to sell within a given territory but does not expressly forbid sales outside that territory. But there have been no sales outside the explicitly allocated territory, and we are left to speculate on what would happen if such extraterritorial sales were, in fact, made. I do not believe that the legality of a contract such as this one should be made to turn on whether the contractual restrictions are “firmly and resolutely” enforced. Otherwise, Schwinn is a shambles.