PSI Repair Service, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
104 F.3d 811 (1997)
- Written by John Reeves, JD
Facts
PSI Repair Services, Inc. (PSI) (plaintiff) provided circuit-board repair services on industrial control equipment. Honeywell Inc. (defendant) was a manufacturer of industrial control equipment. Honeywell did not manufacture the circuit boards within its industrial control equipment. However, Honeywell had an agreement with the entity that did produce such circuit boards that the entity would only produce circuit boards for Honeywell products, and that it would not make available such circuit boards to any other entity. As a result, if a circuit board on a Honeywell product broke, the owner had to take the equipment back to Honeywell to fix the board—the owner could not take the equipment to a third-party repair service such as PSI to fix the circuit board. All customers who purchased Honeywell industrial control equipment were aware at the time of the purchase that in the event of a circuit board breaking, they would have to take the equipment back to Honeywell for the circuit board to be replaced and could not go to any other entity to get the job done. In addition, Honeywell never attempted to overcharge its customers on the basis of this arrangement. PSI brought an antitrust lawsuit against Honeywell alleging that this amounted to an unlawful tying arrangement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Honeywell. PSI appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.