Town Sound And Custom Tops, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that if the plaintiff satisfies the three-part per se tying test, “then the defendant’s tying practices are automatically illegal without further proof of anticompetitive effect”
• holding that Jefferson Parish established that only when the plaintiff has proven market power in the tying product market may the court subject the defendant to per se liability
• stating “[t]he Court long ago established a so-called ‘per se’ rule against tying arrangements in cases where it thought exploitation of leverage is probable”
• refusing to find that Chrysler cars, by themselves, comprised product market where there was evidence of significant cross-price elasticity of demand with other cars
• “A plaintiff must link the two showings with a theory of causation that is both plausible and cognizable by the anti-trust laws.”
• antitrust liability does not attach in competitive market based on even a tying seller’s failure to inform lazy consumers of implicit subprices of tied products

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).