Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 8, 9, 1923. ; April 9, 1923, Decided
Nos. 213, 637, 638, 639.
[*464] [**450] [***749] MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In separate proceedings against thirty or more refiners and wholesalers, the Federal Trade Commission condemned and ordered them to abandon the practice of leasing [*465] underground tanks with pumps to retail dealers at nominal prices and upon condition that the equipment should be used only with gasoline supplied by the lessor. Four of these orders were held invalid by the circuit courts of [****3] appeals for the third and seventh circuits in the above entitled causes -- 276 Fed. 686; 282 Fed. 81; and like ones have been set aside by the circuit courts of appeals for the second and sixth circuits -- Standard Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 273 Fed. 478; Canfield Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 274 Fed. 571. The proceedings, essential facts and points of law disclosed by the four records now before us are so similar that it will suffice to consider No. 213, as typical of all.
July 18, 1919, the Commission issued a complaint charging that respondent, Sinclair Refining Company, was purchasing and selling refined oil and gasoline and leasing and loaning storage tanks and pumps as part of interstate commerce in competition with numerous other concerns similarly engaged; and that it was violating both the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 717, and the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730.
The particular facts relied on to show violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act are thus alleged --
"Paragraph Three. That respondent in the conduct of its business, as aforesaid, with the effect of stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of the aforesaid products and in [****4] the sale, leasing, or loaning of the aforesaid devices and other equipments for storing and handling the same, and with the effect of injuring [***750] competitors who sell such products and devices, has within the four years last past sold, leased, or loaned and now sells, leases, or loans the said devices and their equipment for prices or considerations which do not represent reasonable returns on the investments in such devices and their equipments; that many such sales, leases, or loans of the aforesaid devices are made at prices below the cost of producing and vending [*466] the same; that many of such contracts for the lease or loan of such devices and their equipments provide or are entered into with the understanding that the [**451] lessee or borrower shall not place in such devices, or use in connection with such devices and their equipments, any refined oil or gasoline of a competitor; that only a small proportion of the dealers in gasoline and refined oil under such agreements and understandings deal also in similar products of respondent's competitors and that only a small proportion of such dealers require or use more than a single pump outfit in the conduct [****5] of their said business; that there are numerous competitors in the sale of such products who are unable to enter into such lease agreements or understandings because of the large amount of investment required to carry out such lease agreements as a competitive method of selling refined oil and gasoline; that there are numerous other competitors of respondent engaged in the manufacture and sale of devices and their equipments who do not deal in refined oil and gasoline, and therefore do not sell or lease said devices and their equipments for a nominal consideration on a condition or understanding that their products only are to be used therein; that the said numerous competitors who were unable to enter into such lease agreements or understandings, as aforesaid, have lost numerous customers in the sale of refined oil and gasoline to respondent because of the business practices of respondent hereinbefore set forth. That the said numerous other competitors of respondent who manufacture and sell said devices and their equipments, but do not sell refined oil and gasoline, as aforesaid, have lost numerous customers and prospective customers for the purchase of their devices and equipments [****6] because of the said business practices of respondent, as hereinbefore set forth."
To show violation of the Clayton Act the complaint alleged --
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
261 U.S. 463 *; 43 S. Ct. 450 **; 67 L. Ed. 746 ***; 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2580 ****
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY.; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY (NEW JERSEY).; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. GULF REFINING COMPANY; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. MALONEY OIL & MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
Prior History: [****1] CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.
CERTIORARI to four judgments of Circuit Courts of Appeals setting aside as many orders of the Federal Trade Commission.
leasing, products, competitors, refined, loaning, lessee, pumps, handling, storing, lessor, purchasing, contracts, machinery, gasoline, dealers, oil and gasoline, petroleum, commerce, selling, supplied, tanks, understandings, manufacture, covenants, customers, monopoly, lessen, brand
Antitrust & Trade Law, Clayton Act, General Overview, Business & Corporate Compliance, Types of Commercial Transactions, Sales of Goods, Contracts Law, Personal Property, Personalty Leases, Types of Contracts, Lease Agreements, Regulated Practices, Trade Practices & Unfair Competition