Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp.
United States Supreme Court
485 U.S. 717 (1988)
- Written by Tom Syverson, JD
Facts
In 1972, Sharp Electronics Corporation (Sharp) (defendant) sold calculators to two retailers in the Houston, Texas area. The two retailers were Business Electronics Corporation (BEC) (plaintiff) and Gilbert Hartwell (Hartwell) (defendant). Sharp gave both BEC and Hartwell a list of suggested minimum retail prices. Both retailers frequently priced their calculators below Sharp’s recommended price. In 1973, Hartwell complained to Sharp that BEC was pricing its calculators too low. Hartwell threatened to stop selling Sharp products unless Sharp ended its relationship with BEC. Sharp gave in to Hartwell’s demand and terminated the BEC dealership. BEC sued Sharp and Hartwell, alleging that Sharp and Hartwell conspired to terminate BEC’s dealership in violation of the Sherman Act. The district court instructed the jury that an agreement between Sharp and Hartwell to terminate BEC for price-cutting was a per se violation of the Sherman Act. The jury returned a verdict for BEC. The appellate court reversed, holding that an agreement between a manufacturer and dealer to terminate another dealer is per se unlawful only if the manufacturer exercises control over the conspiring dealer’s prices. BEC petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.
