Gasoline pump leases survived antitrust challenge because many competitor brands were available

Evidence

Reviewing the circumstances, four circuit courts of appeals have answered,ne. And we can find no sufficient reason for a contrary conclusion. Certainly the practice is not opposed to good morals because characterised by

deception, bad faith, fraud or oppression. Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz, 253 U.S. 421, 427. It has been openly adopted by many competing concerns. Some dealers regard it as the best practical method of preserving the integrity of their brands and securing wide distribution. Some think it is undesirable. The devices are not expensive-4300 to $500-can be purchased readily of makers and, while convenient, they are not essential. The contract, open and fair upon its face, provides an unconstrained recipient with free receptacle and pump for storing, dispensing, advertising and protecting the lessor’s brand. The stuff is highly inflammable and the method of handling it is important to the refiner. He is also vitally intere9ted in putting his brand within easy reach of consumers with ample assurance of its genuineness. No purpose or power to acquire unlawful monopoly has been disclosed, and the record does not show that the probable effect of the practice will be unduly to lessen competition.

— Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 589

Categorization

• XREF: The decisive fact — competitor accessibility — directly parallels the housing and price-cutting frameworks: practical availability determines legality, whether of alternative housing or competing goods.