Franchising (& Distribution) Currents, Fall 2008

September 29, 2008 Published Work
Franchise Law Journal, Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2008

Plaintiff competed against other authorized Mack Truck dealers and aggressively pursued a low-price sales strategy throughout the country. Mack terminated the dealer agreement, and plaintiff, now a former dealer, alleged that Mack had done so in furtherance of an unlawful conspiracy with its authorized dealers to keep prices on Mack products artificially high. Plaintiff argued that there was a combination of horizontal collusion among other Mack dealers to eliminate territorial and price competition among themselves and vertical collusion between the manufacturer and those dealers to enforce that agreement, all in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff also alleged violation of the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA).

Resources