Court Opinion

ID: 9426665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:18:37.315278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:02.268543
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Burger,
with whom Mr. Justice Rehnquist joins,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s opinion and write only to emphasize what the case before us does not involve; I join on the basis of my understanding of the scope of our holding. Today’s decision does not implicate ordinary credit sales of only a single product and which therefore cannot constitute a tying arrangement subject to per se scrutiny under § 1 of the Sherman Act. In contrast to such transactions, we are dealing here with a peculiar arrangement expressly found by the Court in Fortner 1 to involve two separate products sold by *623two separate corporations. Fortner Enterprises v. United States Steel Corp., 394 U. S. 495, 507 (1969). Consequently, I read the Court’s assumption that a tie-in existed in this case, required as it is by the law of the case, to cast no doubt on the legality of credit financing by manufacturers or distributors.