From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.
United States Supreme Court
433 U.S. 36 (1977)
GTE Sylvania Inc. (Sylvania) (defendant) manufactured television sets that were distributed to retailers for sale to consumers. Facing declining sales and a smaller market share, Sylvania established a new franchise plan in which Sylvania stopped selling its products to wholesalers and started selling its products to smaller retailers to be resold under franchise licenses instead. Under a franchise agreement, a retailer could resell Sylvania products only from authorized locations. Sylvania hoped that the franchise plan would reduce competition among franchised retailers and incentivize retailers to be more aggressive and competent in order to maintain their franchises. The plan was successful, and Sylvania saw its market share rise significantly. In 1965, Sylvania offered a new franchise to Young Brothers, an established television retailer. Continental T.V., Inc. (Continental) (plaintiff), was another television retailer that maintained a Sylvania franchise very close to the Young Brothers location. After Sylvania ignored Continental’s protests regarding the Young Brothers location, Continental canceled a large order from Sylvania and placed a new order with one of Sylvania’s competitors. The relationship between Continental and Sylvania continued to deteriorate, and Continental eventually withheld payments owed to Sylvania after Sylvania significantly reduced Continental’s credit line. Sylvania subsequently canceled Continental’s credit line, and Continental’s creditor brought an action seeking recovery. Continental made a counterclaim against Sylvania, arguing that the franchise plan violated antitrust law. The jury returned a verdict for Continental on the antitrust claim, and Sylvania appealed a jury instruction that a vertical restraint was a per se antitrust violation. The court of appeals reversed the verdict, finding that the franchise agreement was not a per se violation of antitrust law. Continental appealed the decision.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Powell, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.