Court Opinion

ID: 9539602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:06:35.623522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:00.886638
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
I have no real quarrel with anything that is said in the opinion of the court in this case, but I would reverse Case No. 84-163 for an additional reason. As this agreement is described in the majority opinion, particularly paragraph 14 thereof, I am satisfied that it constitutes an effort on the part of these parties to create a monopoly in the movie theatre business in the Casper, Wyoming area.
Article 1, § 30 of the Constitution of the State of Wyoming provides in pertinent part:
8v“Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state, and shall not be allowed. * * * ”
Article 10, § 8 of the Constitution of the State of Wyoming provides:
8v“There shall be no consolidation or combination of corporations of any kind whatever to prevent competition, to control or influence productions or prices thereof, or in any other manner to interfere with the public good and general welfare.”
The legislature of the state of Wyoming has implemented these constitutional provisions in § 40-4-101, W.S.1977, by providing:
“Any person, firm, or corporation, foreign or domestic, doing business in the state of Wyoming and engaged in the production, manufacture, sale or distribution of any commodity in general use, that shall make, enter into, form or be a party to, any plan, agreement, consolidation or accommodation of any kind whatsoever to prevent competition, or to control or influence production or prices thereof, * * * shall be deemed guilty of unfair discrimination; * * *”
A violation of the provisions of that section is punishable by both a fine and imprisonment.
In both the provisions of the constitution and in the statute, the state of Wyoming has articulated a public policy against the making of agreements such as the one which is the subject of this case. While we recently have said in a public policy context that courts unanimously recognize the right to contract freely, and that we will not set aside a contract on the basis of public policy unless the policy is well settled, unambiguous and not in conflict with any other equally or more compelling public policy (Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Columbia Cas. Co., Wyo., 682 P.2d 975 (1984) I am convinced that the public policy position of the state of Wyoming with respect to contracts in restraint of trade and designed to structure a monopoly is clear. The appropriate rule then is capsulized in Tate v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Wyo., 647 P.2d 58, 61 (1982):
“Generally, a contract which is contrary to public policy will not be recognized by the court, and the parties to such contract will be left as the court finds them. *339Owens v. Capri, 65 Wyo. 325, 202 P.2d 174 (1949); and Claus v. Farmers & Stockgrowers State Bank, 51 Wyo. 45, 63 P.2d 781 (1936).”
Applying this rule I would resolve this case with respect to all issues by holding very simply that the contract involved is one which is contrary to public policy arid none of the parties are entitled to seek relief from the courts of this state.