PICK MANUFACTURING CO.
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORP. ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Pick Manufacturing Co. challenged General Motors' dealer contracts that prohibited dealers from selling or using used parts or non-authorized parts in Chevrolet and Buick vehicles, arguing the provision violated Section 3 of the Clayton Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal, accepting their concurrent findings that the contractual restriction had not substantially lessened competition or created a monopoly in any line of commerce.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
By this suit petitioner challenged the validity under § 3 of the Clayton Act (38 Stat. 730, 731, 15 U. S. C. 14) of a provision of the contracts made with dealers by selling organizations of the General Motors Corporation. The provision in the contract between the Chevrolet Motor Company and dealers is as follows:
“Dealer agrees that he will not sell, offer for sale, or use in the repair of Chevrolet motor vehicles and chassis second-hand or used parts or any part or parts not manufactured by or authorized by the Chevrolet Motor Company. It - is agreed that Dealer is not granted any exclusive selling rights in genuine new Chevrolet parts or accessories.”
There is a similar provision in contracts made by the Buick company.
The District Court dismissed the bill of complaint for want of equity and its decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 80 F. (2d) 641. Upon the evidence adduced at the trial the District Court found that the effect of the clause had not been in any way substantially to lessen competition or to create a monopoly in any line of commerce. This finding was sustained by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Id., p. 644.
Under the established rule, this Court accepts the findings in which two courts concur unless clear error is shown. Stuart v. Hayden, 169 U. S. 1, 14; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 232 U. S. 338; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Railway Clerks, 281 U. S. 548, 558; United States v. Commercial Credit Co., 286 U. S. 63, 67; Continental Bank v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 294 U. S. 648, 678. Applying this rule, the decree is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter, Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Roberts took no part in the consideration and decision of this cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Virginian Ry. Co. v. Sys. Fed'n NO. 40, 300 U.S. 515 (U.S. 1937)…ot shown to be plainly erroneous or unsupported by evidence. • We accordingly accept them as the conclusive basis for decision, Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway & S. S. Clerks, 281 U. S. 548, 558; Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 299 U. S. 3, 4, and address ourselves to the questions of law raised on the record. First. The Obligation Imposed by the Statute. By Title III of the Transportation Act of February 28, 1920, c. 91, 41 Stat. 456, 469, Congress set up the Railroad Labor Board as…
-
Times-Picayune Publ'g Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594 (U.S. 1953)…the arrangement merely prevented lessees from dispensing other types of gasoline through the lessor’s brand pumps and was thus viewed as a means of protecting the goodwill of the lessor’s branded gas. See also Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 299 U. S. 3 (1936).24 The bounds of that doctrine were drawn by International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 298 U. S. 131 (1936). When competing sellers could meet the specifications of the “tied” product, in that ease tabulating cards hitched by…
-
Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 337 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1949)…Two of the three cases decided by this Court which have held § 3 inapplicable also lend support to the view that such a showing is necessary. These are, Federal Trade Comm’n v. Sinclair Co., 261 U. S. 463, and Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 299 U. S. 3. The third—Federal Trade Comm’n v. Curtis Pub. Co., 260 U. S. 568— went off on the ground that the contract involved was one of agency and so is of no present relevance. The Sinclair case involved the lease of gasoline pumps and storage tanks on con…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cont'l Ill. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Chicago, 294 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1935)
- Tex. & NEW Orleans R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Ry. & S.S. Clerks, 281 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1930)
- United States v. Commercial Credit Co., Inc., 286 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1932)
- Stuart v. Hayden, 169 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1898)
- Pick MFG. Co. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 80 F.2d 641 (7th Cir. 1935)
- Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of La., 232 U.S. 338 (U.S. 1914)