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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| express-tie/buyer-acquiescence-excludes-independent-action | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/117/1137-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 — rule-announced/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/117/1137-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 | 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.”
/f3d/117/1137-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
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.
/f2d/361/0874-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966
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.