Pace Electronics, Inc. v. Canon Computer Systems, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
213 F.3d 118 (2000)
Relevant factsFree
Pace (plaintiff), an electronics dealer for Canon (defendant), refused Canon's request not to undercut a rival dealer, Laguna, on pricing, and Canon terminated Pace's dealership shortly after, citing an unmet purchase minimum. Pace sued Canon and Laguna, alleging their real motive was retaliation for refusing to join a price-fixing conspiracy, and the district court dismissed for failure to allege antitrust injury; Pace appealed.
IssueFree
Whether the termination of a dealership in retaliation for the dealer's refusal to participate in a vertical minimum price-fixing conspiracy constitutes valid antitrust injury.