E Z Sockets, Inc. v. Brighton-Best Socket Screw Mfg., Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

E Z Sockets, Inc. v. Brighton-Best Socket Screw Mfg., Inc.

704 A.2d 1309, 307 N.J. Super. 438, 1997 N.J. Super. LEXIS 522

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedDecember 31, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 704 A.2d 1309 (E Z Sockets, Inc. v. Brighton-Best Socket Screw Mfg., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

E Z Sockets, Inc. v. Brighton-Best Socket Screw Mfg., Inc., 704 A.2d 1309, 307 N.J. Super. 438, 1997 N.J. Super. LEXIS 522 (N.J. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants alleging antitrust violations and tortious interference with plaintiff’s prospective economic benefit. The motion judge granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that while plaintiff had alleged a vertical restraint of trade, it had failed to prove by the “rule of reason” test or by the “per se” violation test, that defendants’ conduct constituted a vertical price-fixing agreement. Further, the judge held that while plaintiff could prove some of the elements of tortious interference, it had not produced evidence that defendants had employed “unlawful means,” such .as fraud, intimidation, misrepresentation or other violations of the law.

At oral argument, plaintiff limited its argument on the antitrust claim to contending that it had presented sufficient evidence to prove a per se violation, thus abandoning any claim based on the [439]*439rule of reason. Additionally, plaintiff continued to urge that defendants’ conduct constituted tortious interference.

We reject plaintiffs contentions. A vertical restraint is not illegal per se unless it includes some agreement on price or price levels. See Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics, 485 U.S. 717, 735-36, 108 S.Ct. 1515, 1525-26, 99 L.Ed.2d 808, 823-25, cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1005, 108 S.Ct. 1727, 100 L.Ed.2d 192 (1988). Evidence of price-fixing is lacking here. Further, plaintiff failed to meet all of the requirements to prove a claim for tortious interference. See Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics., 116 N.J. 739, 563 A.2d 31 (1989).

The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Boyle in his opinion reported at 307 N.J.Super. 546, 704 A.2d 1364 (Ch. Div.1996).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants alleging antitrust violations and tortious interference with plaintiff’s prospective economic benefit. The motion judge granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that while plaintiff had alleged a vertical restraint of trade, it had failed to prove by the “rule of reason” test or by the “per se” violation test, that defendants’ conduct constituted a vertical price-fixing agreement. Further, the judge held that while plaintiff could prove some of the elements of tortious interference, it had not produced evidence that defendants had employed “unlawful means,” such .as fraud, intimidation, misrepresentation or other violations of the law.

At oral argument, plaintiff limited its argument on the antitrust claim to contending that it had presented sufficient evidence to prove a per se violation, thus abandoning any claim based on the [439]*439rule of reason. Additionally, plaintiff continued to urge that defendants’ conduct constituted tortious interference.

We reject plaintiffs contentions. A vertical restraint is not illegal per se unless it includes some agreement on price or price levels. See Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics, 485 U.S. 717, 735-36, 108 S.Ct. 1515, 1525-26, 99 L.Ed.2d 808, 823-25, cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1005, 108 S.Ct. 1727, 100 L.Ed.2d 192 (1988). Evidence of price-fixing is lacking here. Further, plaintiff failed to meet all of the requirements to prove a claim for tortious interference. See Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics., 116 N.J. 739, 563 A.2d 31 (1989).

The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Boyle in his opinion reported at 307 N.J.Super. 546, 704 A.2d 1364 (Ch. Div.1996).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 A.2d 1309, 307 N.J. Super. 438, 1997 N.J. Super. LEXIS 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-z-sockets-inc-v-brighton-best-socket-screw-mfg-inc-njsuperctappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack