Summary

William J. Brennan, Jr. United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company…

The District Court was duty bound to exercise discretion which means to weigh contending considerations and conflicting evidence as a matter of judgment-in framing a decree to meet the needs of the case. It could not escape exercising discretion-that is, exercising its judgment within an area of allowable choice which this Court committed to it. Discretion precludes whimsy or caprice. Discretion means the judicial discretion of a court of equity. Where precedent or judicial tradition has established limitations on the chancellor's range of choice, he must respect them.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company…

Before we examine the adequacy of the relief allowed by the District Court, it is appropriate to review some general considerations concerning that most drastic, but most effective, of antitrust remedies-divestiture. The key to the whole question of an antitrust remedy is of course the discovery of measures effective to restore competition. Courts are not authorized in civil proceedings to punish antitrust violators, and relief must not be punitive.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company…

Nor is divestiture required as a means of depriving the defendant of the fruits of its violation. While du Pont's interest in General Motors might serve as a tool for the accomplishment of antitrust violations, it is certainly not the fruit of any such violation. The fruit-the benefit-of a violation of § 7 is the unfair competitive position of one corporation through its stock interest in another. Effective termination of this competitive advantage was precisely the design of the elaborate injunctive provisions devised by the District Court.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature