Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. Super City Department Stores of Arizona, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. Super City Department Stores of Arizona, Inc.

430 P.2d 431, 6 Ariz. App. 85, 1967 Ariz. App. LEXIS 516, 1967 Trade Cas. (CCH) 72,141

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedJune 15, 1967

DocketNo. 2 CA-CIV 381

StatusPublished

This text of 430 P.2d 431 (Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. Super City Department Stores of Arizona, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. Super City Department Stores of Arizona, Inc., 430 P.2d 431, 6 Ariz. App. 85, 1967 Ariz. App. LEXIS 516, 1967 Trade Cas. (CCH) 72,141 (Ark. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

MOLLOY, Judge.

The sole question in this appeal is whether a contract entered into between the plaintiff-manufacturer and the defendant-retail store requiring the retailer to maintain a certain minimum retail sales price for rifles and guns manufactured and sold under the registered trademark “Winchester” is violative of the constitutional provision prohibiting business associations from entering into contracts “* * * to fix the prices * * * of any product or commodity.” Article 14, Section 15, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S.

We find this case to present in essence nothing more than another attack upon the constitutionality of Arizona’s Fair Trade Practices Act. A.R.S. § 44-1422 by its express terms provides that a contract of the nature here involved shall not be deemed to violate any law of this state. If this provision is constitutional, the appellees, who prevailed below, have offered no reason why the subject contract should not be enforced.

The argument here made as to constitutionality is the same as presented in the case of House of Seagram v. Marco Supermarkets, 6 Ariz.App. 83, 430 P.2d 429 (1967), which opinion was released this date. For the reasons stated in this other opinion, the judgment of the trial court in this action is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and KRUCKER, J., concur.

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

MOLLOY, Judge.

The sole question in this appeal is whether a contract entered into between the plaintiff-manufacturer and the defendant-retail store requiring the retailer to maintain a certain minimum retail sales price for rifles and guns manufactured and sold under the registered trademark “Winchester” is violative of the constitutional provision prohibiting business associations from entering into contracts “* * * to fix the prices * * * of any product or commodity.” Article 14, Section 15, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S.

We find this case to present in essence nothing more than another attack upon the constitutionality of Arizona’s Fair Trade Practices Act. A.R.S. § 44-1422 by its express terms provides that a contract of the nature here involved shall not be deemed to violate any law of this state. If this provision is constitutional, the appellees, who prevailed below, have offered no reason why the subject contract should not be enforced.

The argument here made as to constitutionality is the same as presented in the case of House of Seagram v. Marco Supermarkets, 6 Ariz.App. 83, 430 P.2d 429 (1967), which opinion was released this date. For the reasons stated in this other opinion, the judgment of the trial court in this action is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and KRUCKER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

430 P.2d 431, 6 Ariz. App. 85, 1967 Ariz. App. LEXIS 516, 1967 Trade Cas. (CCH) 72,141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olin-mathieson-chemical-corp-v-super-city-department-stores-of-arizona-arizctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack