|
|
Ftc v. Beech-Nut Packing Co., 257 U.S. 441 (1922)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Ftc v. Beech-Nut Packing Co., 257 U.S. 441 (1922)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 257 U.S. 419, click here.
Federal Trace Commission v. Beech-Nut Packing Company No. 47 Argued November 10, 14, 1921 Decided January 3, 1922 257 U.S. 441
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
1. A trader does not violate the Sherman Act by simply refusing to sell his goods or by withholding them from those who do not sell them at the resale prices he fixes, but he may not, by contracts or combinations express or implied, unduly hinder or obstruct the free and natural flows of interstate commerce. P. 452.
2. The public policy evinced in the Sherman Act is to be considered in determining what are "unfair methods of competition" within the Federal Trade Commission Act. P. 453.
3. A plan of merchandising, in interstate trade which has a dangerous tendency unduly to hinder competition or to create monopoly the Federal Trade Commission has authority to order suppressed. P. 454.
4. The respondent manufacturer, for the purpose of maintaining resale prices fixed by itself, declined to sell its products to jobbers, wholesalers, or retailers who did not observe them or who sold to other dealers who failed to do so, and, to enforce this policy, obtained, by the cooperation of it customers and through it agents and salesmen, and by marking and tracing the cases of its good, the names of dealers who cut the prices or who sold to others who did so, and enrolled them as undesirable customers to whom it did not sell until they gave satisfactory assurances of their purpose to conform in the future. By these means, it was enabled to suppress competition in the disposition of it products after it had old them by preventing all who did not conform to the resale price from obtaining more goods, although there was no contract for fixing, maintaining or enforcing the resale prices. Held that these or any other equivalent cooperative means should be enjoined, upon an order of the Federal Trade Commission, as an unfair method of competition. P. 454.
264 F. 885 reversed.
Certiorari to review a judgment of the circuit court of appeals setting aside an order of the Federal Trade Commission.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Ftc v. Beech-Nut Packing Co., 257 U.S. 441 (1922) in 257 U.S. 441 257 U.S. 442–257 U.S. 443. Original Sources, accessed November 25, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=P5HKQ8FEU9VG8UP.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Ftc v. Beech-Nut Packing Co., 257 U.S. 441 (1922), in 257 U.S. 441, pp. 257 U.S. 442–257 U.S. 443. Original Sources. 25 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=P5HKQ8FEU9VG8UP.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Ftc v. Beech-Nut Packing Co., 257 U.S. 441 (1922). cited in 1922, 257 U.S. 441, pp.257 U.S. 442–257 U.S. 443. Original Sources, retrieved 25 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=P5HKQ8FEU9VG8UP.
|