Legal Opinion

Revlon Nail Enamel Corp. v. Charmley Drug Shop

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Decided March 8, 1938PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This is a final hearing in a cause on the so-called Fair Trade act. Rev. Stat. 56:4-3 to 6. The method adopted by complainant in order to take advantage of the statute was to make a price-fixing contract with only one of the dealers retailing its product — nail polish — and then to notify the other dealers and the trade in general, of the existence of that contract and the price so established.

No valid objection can be taken to this procedure. While most producers make identical price-fixing contracts with a large number of their customers, that course is unnecessary; a single valid contract…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lentheric, Inc. v. WeissbardNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1937

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Bohun v. KinaszSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
  2. Frank Fischer, C., Corp. v. Ritz Drug Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1941
  3. Menley & James Laboratories v. Vornado, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1966
  4. Lucien Lelong, Inc. v. H. Mohr & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. WeissbardNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API