Barry Wright Corp. v. ITT Grinnell Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
724 F.2d 227 (1983)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
ITT Grinnell Corp. (Grinnell) (defendant) made nuclear-plant pipe systems and bought over half of all mechanical snubbers, which are shock absorbers used in nuclear pipe systems, made in the world. Because snubbers made outside the United States did not meet regulatory standards, Grinnell relied on Pacific Scientific Company (Pacific), the only domestic manufacturer, for all its snubbers. Grinnell made a deal with Barry Wright Corp. (Barry) (plaintiff) to help Barry produce snubbers and to use Barry as its exclusive source in 1977, the year Barry was expected to produce enough snubbers for Grinnell’s needs. Pacific learned of the deal and offered Grinnell a discount in return for an order worth $5.7 million to satisfy Grinnell’s needs until 1977. Barry failed to meet its production goals, so Grinnell and Pacific entered into another fixed-amount contract expected to cover Grinnell’s needs for two more years. Grinnell also canceled its contract with Barry. Barry ceased development of its snubber business and sued Grinnell under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, alleging that Grinnell’s contracts with Pacific, which Barry classified as requirements contracts, were exclusionary and restricted competition. The district court found that no antitrust violations had occurred and ruled in favor of Grinnell. Barry appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
