OR · 15usc1:agreement.x-monsanto-exclusion-of-independent-action
This is a conditional evidentiary inference used when the alleged agreement is proved circumstantially; it is not a universal additional element where direct agreement evidence is offered. Under Monsanto (465 U.S. at 764) and Matsushita (475 U.S. at 588), circumstantial evidence must tend to exclude independent action.
Exact element source
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1; Unicode character offsets [57:133] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c248965c2c712de1e3f3d52a17be4c90dfdcac5d3f9fea0b7220b164e2c2973.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Systemcare, Inc. v. Wang Laboratories Corp. — 117 F.3d 1137 (1997) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Systemcare, Inc. v. Wang Laboratories Corp. — 117 F.3d 1137 (1997) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Conditional Monsanto / Matsushita inference: evidence tending to exclude the possibility of independent action when circumstantial proof is used | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / meritsMonsanto's heightened evidentiary showing for vertical price-fixing adds nothing where the tie is an express contract term; the court reserves the question for implicit ties. Stated as a rule about what evidence would suffice; no evidence of this case is weighed. | express-tie/buyer-acquiescence-excludes-independent-action | Evidence that the buyer acquiesces in a tying arrangement will unequivocally “exclude the possibility that the manufacturer and [buyers] were acting independently.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_117.jsonl#/f3d/117/1137-01; Unicode character offsets [26210:26374] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a36344b321af95e0282badf90b0d6556447e8cb9d2f401ed27f3a27a49607f8d.Contrary to Wang’s argument, the requirements for proof of concerted action in a tying ease are consistent with those applied in cases involving other unreasonable restraints of trade.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_117.jsonl#/f3d/117/1137-01; Unicode character offsets [24419:24603] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a36344b321af95e0282badf90b0d6556447e8cb9d2f401ed27f3a27a49607f8d. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Evidence that the buyer acquiesces in a tying arrangement will unequivocally “exclude the possibility that the manufacturer and [buyers] were acting independently.”
Systemcare, Inc. v. Wang Laboratories Corp. — 117 F.3d 1137 (1997) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
Evidence that the buyer acquiesces in a tying arrangement will unequivocally “exclude the possibility that the manufacturer and [buyers] were acting independently.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_117.jsonl#/f3d/117/1137-01; Unicode character offsets [26210:26374] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a36344b321af95e0282badf90b0d6556447e8cb9d2f401ed27f3a27a49607f8d.This is a conditional evidentiary inference used when the alleged agreement is proved circumstantially; it is not a universal additional element where direct agreement evidence is offered. Under Monsanto (465 U.S. at 764) and Matsushita (475 U.S. at 588), circumstantial evidence must tend to exclude independent action.
interpretation
As long as Colgate has any life in it, however, a simple announcement of policy followed by customer acquiescence based solely on the individual self-interest of the customer in continued dealings with the manufacturer is not an agreement within the reach of the Sherman Act.
Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. — 361 F.2d 874 (1966) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
As long as Colgate has any life in it, however, a simple announcement of policy followed by customer acquiescence based solely on the individual self-interest of the customer in continued dealings with the manufacturer is not an agreement within the reach of the Sherman Act.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_361.jsonl#/f2d/361/0874-01; Unicode character offsets [11025:11300] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8e08a932e895de43a7032f3e31321a87a2b612988a02f8668089d2496e25d3.This is a conditional evidentiary inference used when the alleged agreement is proved circumstantially; it is not a universal additional element where direct agreement evidence is offered. Under Monsanto (465 U.S. at 764) and Matsushita (475 U.S. at 588), circumstantial evidence must tend to exclude independent action.