Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp.
465 U.S. 752 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a vertical price-fixing conspiracy under § 1 of the Sherman Act based on a distributor's termination, the plaintiff must present evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that the manufacturer and non-terminated distributors were acting independently. Mere evidence of complaints from other distributors about the terminated distributor's prices is insufficient to prove concerted action.
Facts:
- Spray-Rite Service Corp. was a wholesale distributor of agricultural chemicals, including those manufactured by Monsanto Co.
- Spray-Rite operated as a discount business, buying products in large quantities and selling them at a low margin.
- Other Monsanto distributors frequently complained to Monsanto about Spray-Rite's price-cutting practices.
- In 1967, Monsanto announced it would renew distributorships based on new criteria, including whether the distributor employed trained salesmen and could fully exploit its market area.
- Between 1965 and 1966, Monsanto representatives, citing complaints from other distributors, had requested that Spray-Rite maintain its prices and threatened termination if it did not.
- In October 1968, Monsanto declined to renew Spray-Rite’s distributorship, despite Spray-Rite being its 10th largest distributor of a primary herbicide.
- After its termination, Spray-Rite found it difficult to purchase Monsanto's herbicides from other distributors.
Procedural Posture:
- Spray-Rite Service Corp. sued Monsanto Co. in the United States District Court, alleging a conspiracy with its distributors to fix resale prices in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.
- The case was tried before a jury, which was instructed that vertical price-fixing is per se illegal.
- The jury, answering special interrogatories, found that Spray-Rite's termination was pursuant to a price-fixing conspiracy and awarded it $3.5 million in damages, which was trebled.
- Monsanto, the defendant, appealed the verdict to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that proof of a distributorship termination following complaints from competing distributors is sufficient to support an inference of a conspiracy.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts regarding the proper standard of proof.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence that a manufacturer terminated a price-cutting distributor following or in response to complaints from other distributors, without more, constitute sufficient evidence to prove a concerted price-fixing conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No. Evidence of a distributor's termination following price complaints from competing distributors is not, by itself, sufficient to infer a vertical price-fixing conspiracy. To survive a directed verdict, a plaintiff must present evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that the manufacturer and its other distributors were acting independently. The plaintiff must demonstrate a 'conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective,' meaning there was a meeting of the minds to set prices. Relying on complaints alone would deter legitimate business communications and penalize a manufacturer's independent right to choose its distributors under the Colgate doctrine. Although the Court of Appeals applied the wrong legal standard, there was sufficient evidence in this case to meet the new, stricter standard. This evidence included testimony that Monsanto threatened other price-cutting distributors with having their supply cut off if they did not adhere to suggested prices and a distributor's newsletter which could reasonably be interpreted as describing an agreement to maintain prices. Therefore, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Spray-Rite's termination was part of an illegal price-fixing conspiracy.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
The Court correctly adheres to the 73-year-old precedent of Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., which holds that vertical price-fixing agreements are per se illegal under the Sherman Act. Despite the Solicitor General's request to overrule this precedent, Congress has never acted to change this long-standing interpretation of the Act, and there is no reason for the Court to depart from it now.
Analysis:
This decision significantly heightened the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in distributor-termination antitrust cases. By rejecting the rule that complaints plus termination equal an inference of conspiracy, the Court made it more difficult for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment. The 'tends to exclude the possibility of independent action' standard protects manufacturers' unilateral business decisions and reinforces the principles of the Colgate doctrine. The case forces courts and litigants to distinguish between legitimate, independent actions (even if influenced by information from distributors) and a true 'meeting of the minds' required for a § 1 conspiracy. This standard has become a cornerstone of modern antitrust analysis in vertical restraint cases.
Unlock the full brief for Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp.