Business Law Monsanto case.docx - Student Name Course The...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 6 pages.

Student Name: Course: The Legal and Regulatory Environment of Business Instructor: United States Supreme Court MONSANTO CO. v. SPRAY-RITE SERVICE CORP., (1984) No. 82-914 Argued: December 5, 1983 Decided: March 20, 1984 In the 1980’s the antitrust laws underwent great changes in their latitude and use. The court (1) redefined conduct which may be considered illegal per se and conduct judged under the rule of reason and, (2) the usage of practical means to accomplish basic antitrust goals[Tho91]. In Monsanto, the court had set the standard for summary Judgements. The courts attempted to prevent abuse of antitrust laws by those who would want to rely on the per-se rule by claiming machination and to deter claims based on pro-competitive conduct which could be said to be an antitrust violation. The two issues have to be brought out during litigation for the rule to be applied. I will attempt to provide a framework for applying the Monsanto rule basing it on the context and reasoning of the courts decisions. FACTS Monsanto was the defendant in this matter and he was a manufacturer of Agricultural herbicides which were later sold to distributors. The plaintiff, Spray-Rite Services Corporation was the plaintiff and one of the defendant’s major suppliers. He would purchase in bulk and sell the herbicides to the retailers at a discounted price.
Image of page 1

Subscribe to view the full document.

There had been complaints by the distributors concerning the discount practice that the plaintiff was using to sell their products. This prompted the defendant to stop selling to them the herbicides in 1968. This made the plaintiff cease operations whereby he subsequently brought a suit against the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by colluding with the other distributors to fix the price of the defendant’s products. This matter was first heard in the District Court where the jury agreed with the plaintiff that indeed there was conspiracy on the price fixing and the verdict was for the Plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Defendant went to the court of appeals which also affirmed this decision. Again the defendant appealed.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
  • Spring '16
  • PROF. AFFULO
  • Supreme Court of the United States, United States Supreme Court

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern