Summary

William J. Brennan, Jr. White Motor Company v. United States…

And in order to appraise that effect, it is necessary to know what sanctions are imposed against distributors who 'raid,' or sell across territorial boundaries in violation of the agreements. If, for example, such a cross-sale incurs only an obligation to share (or 'pass over') the profit with the dealer whose territory has been invaded-as is most often, and apparently here, the case [10] -then the practical effect upon competition of a territorial limitation may be no more harmful than that of the typical exclusive franchise-the lawfulness of which the Government does not dispute here.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. White Motor Company v. United States…

In sum, the proffered justifications do not seem to me to sanction customer restrictions which suppress all competition between the manufacturer and his distributors for the most desirable customers. On trial, as I see it, the Government will necessarily prevail unless the proof warrants a finding that, even in the absence of the restrictions, the economics of the trade are such that the distributors cannot compete for the reserved accounts.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. White Motor Company v. United States…

The third justification, which White offered in its jurisdictional statement, is that customer limitations are essential to enable it to 'more effectively compete against its competitors by selling trucks directly' to the reserved customers rather than 'through the interposition of distributors or dealers.' This argument invites consideration of what to me is the essential vice of the customer restrictions. The manufacturer's very position in the channels of distribution should afford him an inherent cost advantage over his distributors.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature