William O. Douglas,
White Motor Company v. United States…
“ To bind, to restrain, is of their very essence. The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition. ”
William O. Douglas,
White Motor Company v. United States…
“ The history of the restraint, the evil believed to exist, the reason for adopting the particular remedy, the purpose or end sought to be attained, are all relevant facts. This is not because a good intention will save an otherwise objectionable regulation or the reverse; but because knowledge of intent may help the court to interpret facts and to predict consequences.'We recently reviewed per se violations of the antitrust laws in Northern Pac. R. Co. ”
William O. Douglas,
White Motor Company v. United States…
“ Under the first, a distributor was allowed to appoint dealers under him, but each distributor had to agree with appellant that he would charge the dealers the same price for trucks that appellant charged its direct dealers. The agreement affected only five percent of the trucks sold by appellant. And there were no price-fixing provisions pertaining to truck sales to ultimate purchasers. The other price-fixing arrangement required all distributors and dealers to give 'national accounts,' 'fleet accounts,' and governmental agencies the same discount on parts and accessories as White gave them. ”
