Development of the Rule of Reason
Basic History: the reasonability standard was introduced by Standard Oil, while the judicial test (rule of reason) was established by CBT
Formulation of Rule of Reason after CBT: does the ROT "merely regulate" and "perhaps thereby promote" competition, or does it "suppress or even destroy" competition?
- Court must consider the nature/scope/effect of the restraint
- Other relevant factors include facts peculiar to the business, condition before and after the restraint, history of the restraint, and reason for adopting the restraint
Caselaw:
Standard Oil v. U.S. (1911) (reasonability is the standard for all Section 1 violations)
- Holding: only unreasonable restraints of trade are illegal under the Sherman Act (rule of reason)
Chicago Bd. of Trade v. U.S. (1918) (classic rule of reason case)
- Holding: Board of Trade's rule was reasonable under the rule of reason
- Lower court erred:
- Didn't consider the purpose of the call rule
- Excluded evidence on the effect of the rule
- Outlined judicial test: does the ROT "merely regulate" and "perhaps thereby promote" competition, or does it "suppress or even destroy" competition?
- Court must consider the nature/scope/effect of the restraint
- Other relevant factors include facts peculiar to the business, condition before and after the restraint, history of the restraint, and reason for adopting the restraint
- Applied test:
- Nature of restraint: time restriction made it in interest of sellers to attend the call
- Scope of restraint: applied toa small part of daily grain shipped and daily sales
- Effect of restraint: no appreciable effect on prices or volume
- Worried that warehouses would exercise market power, CBT setting prices improves competition
- Lower court erred:
- Facts: restriction on the after-hours price in the "to arrive market" for grain
- To arrive market: parties transact about graint that arrives the next morning (between the spot and future markets)
- Agreement: at the end of the day's spot market trading, arrive price is fixed for each transaction (further negotiations are prohibited)
- Note: didn't overrule Trans-MO, but gave defendants a path forward