United States v. Colgate & Co.
| United States v. Colgate & Co. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 10, 1919 Decided June 2, 1919 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Colgate & Co. |
| Citations | 250 U.S. 300 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Demurrer sustained, 253 F. 522 (E.D. Va. 1918). |
| Holding | |
| Colgate did not violate the Sherman Act when it cut off agreements with retailers. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | McReynolds |
| Laws applied | |
| Sherman Antitrust Act | |
United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919), is a United States antitrust law case in which the United States Supreme Court noted that a company has the power to decide with whom to do business.[1][2] Per the Colgate Doctrine, a company may unilaterally terminate business with any other company without triggering a violation of the antitrust laws.[3]
This case created an exception to vertical price restraints in vertical agreements. According to the ruling, resale price maintenance is generally illegal per se, but if a supplier merely says it will not deal with resellers that charge less than the supplier's stipulated price, the supplier need not deal with such a retailer. This is a narrow exception, as companies are still prohibited from threatening or warning price-cutters.
Facts
[edit]Colgate & Co. had a policy of refusing to deal with vendors who sold below suggested retail price. Colgate simply refused to continue to deal with a vendor that Colgate determined was not abiding by the rules. In cutting off these contracts, Colgate was willing to allow a vendor to sell out current inventory.[4]
Judgment
[edit]The Sherman Act §§ 1-7, 15 note, is intended to prohibit monopolies and combinations, which probably would interfere with the free exercise of their rights by those engaged, or who wish to engage in trade; but in the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly a manufacturer engaged in private business may exercise his discretion as to parties with whom he will deal, and may refuse to sell to those who will not maintain specified resale prices.[1]
See also
[edit]- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 250
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Unilateral Policy
References
[edit]- ^ a b United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919).
- ^ "not found". college.holycross.edu. Retrieved February 16, 2024.
- ^ "Refusals to Deal: The Aftermath of Parke, Davis and the Vitality of the Colgate Doctrine". ir.lawnet.fordham.edu. Retrieved February 16, 2024.
- ^ "privacy error" (PDF). myweb.clemson.edu. Retrieved February 16, 2024.
External links
[edit]- Text of United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919) is available from: Cornell Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
- 6 U.C. Davis Bus. L.J. 22 (2006)
- Hogan Lovells May 2009 Antitrust Update
- St Olaf Antirust Summary
- 33 American Lar Review Vol. 462 (1984)
| People |
|  | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brands | ||||||
| Related | ||||||
