Fisher Flouring Mills Co. v. Swanson

Citations

• 76 Wash. 649
• 137 P. 144
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1955

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Validity — “Restraint of Trade” — “Restraint of Competition.” There is a distinction between the terms contracts “in restraint of trade” and contracts “in restraint of competition,” in that the former applies to undertakings not to pursue a particular calling or business, which are valid only when reasonably restricted as to time and place, while the latter includes all contracts tending to unreasonably restrict competition by other means which are void as against public policy irrespective of limitations as to time or place.</p> <p>Contracts — Validity—“Restraint of Competition” — Monopolies —Tests—Reasonable Contracts. The basis of the rule of public policy against restraints in competition being the tendency to create a monopoly, whether a restriction covers such a part of the supply, or is so complete a restriction as to be against public policy, must be determined by the facts of each particular case; and a manufacturer’s contract fixing retailers’ prices as incidental to some main contract will be sustained where it involves less than a controlling part of a given commodity in a given market, not proceeding from nor tending to create a monopoly, and where it was reasonable in reference to the interests of the parties and of the public, and the price fixed was fairly necessary to the protection of the covenantee, and fair to the public in that it furnished only a reasonable profit to the parties.</p> <p>Contracts — Legality—Restraint of Competition — Monopolies— Maximum Selling Price. A contract between a manufacturer and retailers requiring them to maintain fixed minimum retail selling prices for a certain brand of flour constituting an insignificant part of the entire supply in any community, sold by all retailers in all markets in competition with many other brands, at only a fair profit, and which was necessary to the manufacturer in retaining the good will of retailers and building up a reputation for the brand, is not void as against public