The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California rejects a breach of contract defence based on the illegality of the contract under the Robinson-Patman Act (Pet Food Express / Royal Canin)

Robinson-Patman Act Defense Rejected in Breach-of-Contract Case* Asserting a breach-of-contract defense based on the illegality of the contact under the Robinson-Patman Act appears to be as difficult as successfully alleging a Robinson-Patman Act claim itself. Earlier this week, the federal district court in San Francisco refused to allow a manufacturer of premium pet food to nullify its agreement with a retailer on the ground that the agreement violates the Robinson-Patman Act. Summary judgment was granted to the retailer as to the manufacturer’s antitrust-based defenses and

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Wolters Kluwer (Riverwoods)

Quotation

Jeffrey May, The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California rejects a breach of contract defence based on the illegality of the contract under the Robinson-Patman Act (Pet Food Express / Royal Canin), 18 April 2011, e-Competitions Bulletin US Private Enforcement, Art. N° 35785

Visites 1151

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues