Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. J. W. Mays, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 6, 1958Published

1DissentMurphy, J.

All that is required under section 369-b of the General Business Law to justify an injunction is that defendant did willfully and knowingly (1) advertise, (2) offer for sale, or (3) sell, any commodity at less than the price stipulated in any contract entered into pursuant to section 369-a. It is undisputed that defendant knew that the commodity was price-fixed at the time that defendant sold it. Defendant is, therefore, subject to restraint under the second and third clauses of the statute. There is nothing in the statute which justifies withholding the remedy because the defendant did not…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  2. Meltzer v. KoenigsbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
  3. People ex rel. Doctor's Hospital, Inc. v. SextonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
  4. People Ex Rel. Doctors Hospital, Inc. v. SextonNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
  5. Barron Motor, Inc. v. May's Drug Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1940

4 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