Difference between revisions of "Exclusivity contracts"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(a start) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
When a plaintiff "seeks to forbid exclusivity - first on its own behalf and implicitly on behalf of others," the plaintiff does state an antitrust injury because it seeks "to destroy an anticompetitive arrangement." 2 Areeda, Hovenkamp & Blair, Antitrust Law P 348e, at 401. | When a plaintiff "seeks to forbid exclusivity - first on its own behalf and implicitly on behalf of others," the plaintiff does state an antitrust injury because it seeks "to destroy an anticompetitive arrangement." 2 Areeda, Hovenkamp & Blair, Antitrust Law P 348e, at 401. | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Antitrust]] |
Latest revision as of 12:15, July 13, 2016
Exclusivity contracts are subject to scrutiny under antitrust law.
In Potters Medical Center v. City Hospital Association, 800 F.2d 568 (6th Cir. 1986), the court allowed a plaintiff hospital to sue a rival hospital in order to compel it to end its anticompetitive practice of denying hospital privileges to physicians who simultaneously held hospital privileges with plaintiff.
When a plaintiff "seeks to forbid exclusivity - first on its own behalf and implicitly on behalf of others," the plaintiff does state an antitrust injury because it seeks "to destroy an anticompetitive arrangement." 2 Areeda, Hovenkamp & Blair, Antitrust Law P 348e, at 401.