Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today, The Essentials 10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

تمرين 1

Carrier Corp. v. Outokumpu Oyj
FACTS Carrier Corporation is a U.S. firm that manufactures air-conditioning and refrigeration (ACR) equipment. To make these products, Carrier uses ACR copper tubing bought from Outokumpu Oyj, a Finnish company. Carrier is one of the world's largest purchasers of ACR copper tubing. The Commission of the European Communities (EC) found that Outokumpu had conspired with other companies to fix ACR tubing prices in Europe. Carrier then filed a suit in a U.S. court, alleging that the cartel (group) had also conspired to fix prices in the United States by agreeing that only Outokumpu would sell ACR tubing in the U.S. market. The district court dismissed Carrier's claim for lack of jurisdiction. Carrier appealed.
ISSUE Did the Finnish company's anticompetitive actions have a sufficient effect on U.S. commerce to enable a U.S. court to exercise jurisdiction over it under the Sherman Act?
DECISION Yes. The federal appellate court reversed the district court's judgment for the defendant.
REASON Carrier's complaint sufficiently alleged that Outokumpu's conspiracy had a substantial effect on U.S. commerce. Carrier alleged that Outokumpu had conspired to divide up U.S. customers, which caused higher prices for ACR copper tubing. The complaint also alleged specific details about the conspiracy by drawing from the EC's decisions. It did not matter that the EC did not identify a conspiracy aimed at the United States because that was beyond the scope of its decision. Carrier had some evidence that the conspiracy reached the United States because Outokumpu's competitors solicited its business only after the conspiracy ended. Therefore, the district court had jurisdiction over Carrier's Sherman Act claims.
CRITICAL THINKING-Legal Consideration When this case proceeds, should the district court apply the rule of reason? Why or why not ?