Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co.
1961 U.S. LEXIS 1959, 365 U.S. 320, 5 L. Ed. 2d 580 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An exclusive-dealing contract, such as a requirements contract, does not violate Section 3 of the Clayton Act unless its performance will foreclose competition in a substantial share of the relevant line of commerce. The determination of substantiality requires analyzing the percentage of the market foreclosed within the relevant geographic area of effective competition, not merely the dollar value of the contract.
Facts:
- Tampa Electric Company, a public utility, decided in 1955 to build a new coal-burning power plant, the Gannon Station, in peninsular Florida, an area where utilities predominantly used oil.
- On May 23, 1955, Tampa Electric entered into a 20-year contract with Nashville Coal Co. for the total coal requirements of the Gannon Station's first two units, estimated to eventually reach 2,250,000 tons per year.
- To facilitate this contract, Tampa Electric spent approximately $3 million more to construct coal-burning units instead of oil-burning ones, and Nashville Coal spent about $7.5 million preparing to fulfill its delivery obligations.
- In April 1957, shortly before the first delivery, Nashville Coal informed Tampa Electric that it considered the contract illegal under antitrust laws and would not perform it.
- The coal market relevant to Tampa Electric included approximately 700 producers in the Appalachian region.
- The total anticipated coal requirements under the contract amounted to less than 1% of the coal produced and marketed by producers in this relevant competitive area.
Procedural Posture:
- Tampa Electric Co. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court seeking a declaratory judgment that its contract with Nashville Coal Co. was valid and enforceable.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for Nashville Coal Co., holding that the requirements contract was illegal per se under Section 3 of the Clayton Act.
- Tampa Electric Co., as the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, finding the contract illegal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 a 20-year requirements contract for the sale of coal violate Section 3 of the Clayton Act where the contract's needs represent less than 1% of the total available supply in the relevant competitive market?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clark
No. A requirements contract does not violate Section 3 of the Clayton Act when the portion of the market it forecloses is insubstantial. The lower courts erred by defining the relevant market too narrowly as only peninsular Florida. The correct 'area of effective competition' encompasses the entire geographic area where the 700 producers operate and from which Tampa Electric could practicably purchase coal. Within this broad and properly defined market, the contract foreclosed less than 1% of the available coal, a share that is not substantial enough to significantly lessen competition. The large dollar value of the contract is not the determinative factor; rather, the key is the proportionate volume of commerce foreclosed in the relevant market.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. (The dissenters indicated they would affirm the judgments of the lower courts without writing a separate opinion explaining their reasoning).
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the modern framework for analyzing requirements contracts under the Clayton Act. It moved antitrust analysis away from a simple quantitative test based on dollar volume and toward a more qualitative assessment of a contract's actual competitive impact. The decision's emphasis on correctly defining the 'relevant market' or 'area of effective competition' is a cornerstone of modern antitrust law. By showing that a broad market definition can legitimize a contract that appears anticompetitive in a narrow market, the ruling provides greater legal certainty for businesses entering into long-term exclusive-dealing arrangements, particularly public utilities that rely on them to ensure a stable supply.
