Legal Opinion

Aluminum Shapes, Inc. v. KA-LIQUIDATING COMPANY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided October 4, 1968No. Civ. A. 66-1399PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DUMBAULD, District Judge.

On January 22, 1965, plaintiff contracted “to supply Keystone Alloys Company with their entire aluminum extrusion needs for a period of one year” and to purchase all aluminum extrusion scrap generated at Keystone’s plant in Derry. This type of contract, although inherently suspect from the antitrust standpoint, must be distinguished from a “tying clause” agreement, and is presumably justifiable on the grounds of affording the parties price stability, assured supply, and similar legitimate business needs. Standard Oil Co. of California and Standard Stations,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. LivingstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
  3. Standard Oil Co. of California v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. In the Matter of Gary J. Borba, Debtor. Frank L. Lang, Jr., as Trustee of the Estate of Gary J. Borba v. Michael S. And Cynthia D. GrahamCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  2. O'KEEFE v. GrenkeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
  3. Moskowitz v. MICHAELS ARTISTS & ENGINEER. SUP., INC.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1970
  4. Columbian Rope Co. v. Rinek Cordage Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. SVM INVESTMENTS v. Mexican Exporters, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1985

6 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