Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Pace Electronics, Inc. v. Canon Computer Systems, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
213 F.3d 118 (2000)


Facts

Pace Electronics, Inc. (Pace) (plaintiff) was an electronics dealer. Pace bought products from manufacturers and resold the products to retailers. In 1996, Pace entered a dealership agreement with Canon Computer Systems, Inc. (Canon) (defendant). Under the dealership agreement’s terms, Pace could purchase Canon products at dealer prices in exchange for a commitment to purchase a minimum amount of Canon products. At the time, Pace competed with another Canon dealer, Laguna Corporation (Laguna) (defendant). Canon asked Pace not to sell Canon products to Laguna’s customers or to price Canon products below Laguna’s prices. Pace refused. In 1997, Canon canceled Pace’s dealership. Canon claimed that Pace had not purchased the minimum amount necessary to maintain the dealership agreement. Pace sued Canon and Laguna, alleging that Canon and Laguna unlawfully conspired to set minimum prices for Canon products. Pace claimed that Canon canceled Pace’s dealership, because Pace refused to agree to participate in the vertical price-fixing conspiracy. Pace alleged injury in the form of lost profits, as well as harm to the wider market from reduced pricing competition. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed Pace’s complaint. The district court held that Pace failed to allege valid antitrust injury in the form of actual competitive harm to the market. Pace appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Rosenn, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. 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.

  2. 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 221,000 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.