Legal
What's New Research Government Site Index Home Meetings Directories About ICSC Search ICSC Sign On Publications Education Help Messages



ICSC Legal Database - CasesMonday, February 22, 1999 05:01 PM

Case Index:
00125

Citation:
American Key Corp. v. Cole Nat. Corp., 762 F.2d 1569 (fifth Cir. 1986).

Issue:
Whether the location of a firm in the replacement key business essentially in shopping malls resulted in a

definition of the relevant geographic market for anti-trust purposes as the shopping mall market in which the

company operated.

Facts:
The defendant Cole is involved in a variety of retailing enterprises including key duplicating services,

personalized products, video games and home computers, etc. A relatively small aspect of its business is the

key duplicating service which accounts for less than 6% of its total sales. Many of its key duplicating shops are

 on the premises of

major retailers, but not all are located in malls or shopping centers. Cole also has an agreement with Sears to

lease space to operate key shops both within Sears stores and on Sears parking lots. These are licensing

agreements giving both parties the right to terminate on sixty days notice and Cole requested that the

Henderson firm make a title search covering the period subsequent to October 10, 1976. The purchas ers

brought a negligence action against the Henderson law firm and the title insurance company and the Circuit

Court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Subsequently, the purchasers filed the present action in

Federal District Court under the Cla yton and Sherman Acts alleging price fixing, exclusive dealing and a

monopoly in violation of the antitrust laws. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.

Purchasers appealed.

Holding:
Affirmed. Where a bank passes on to the borrower its attorney's fees pursuant to mortgage finance transaction,

such is not an antitrust violation. In the absence of conduct causing a restraint of trade or the effectuation of a

monopoly, an individual has unfettered discretion in deciding with whom he will do business. Price fixing

agreements and arrangements are unlawful per se. However, the exchange of price information among

competitors is not a per se violation of the antitrust laws. (Note: This is an exhaustive opinion treating the

standing of a person to institute suit, application of the antitrust statute of limitations, the nature of tying

arrangements, exclusive dealing, price fixing, customer allocation agreements and exchange o f price

information.)

Publication:
Legal Update

Date:
Winter 1986

Classification 1:
Antitrust

Classification 2:

Classification 3:

00125 - Legal Update - Winter 1986