Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. v. United States, 282 U.S. 30 (1930)

U.S. Supreme Court, (October 27, 1930)

Docket number: 83

/us/282/30/case.html
Permanent Link: http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/20016541
Id. vLex: VLEX-20016541

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Supreme Court - FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986)

U.S. Supreme Court - California Dental Assn. v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999)

U.S. Supreme Court - Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984)

U.S. Supreme Court - Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996)

U.S. Supreme Court - Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993)

U.S. Supreme Court - National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 85 (1984)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Big Bear Lodging Association; Sleepy Forest Resorts, a California Corporation; Robert Pool, Dba Cathy'S Country Cottages; Mark Twain Hannah, Dba Front Desk Vacation Rentals, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Snow Summit, Inc., a California Corporation; Richard Kun, an Individual; Fritz Uppenlatz, Dba Forest Shores Estates (Inn); Joyce Reed, Dba Grey Squirrel Resort; Gerry Taylor, Dba Bear Mountain Trading Co.; Bruce Voight, Dba Alpine Slide At Magic Mountain; Loren Haffen, Dba Boulder Creek Resort, Dba Holloway'S Marina & Rv Park, Dba North Shore Landing; Robert Mcdonald, Dba Shores Acres Lodge & Vacation Rentals; Big Bear Lake Resort Association; Bear Mountain, Inc., Dba Bear Mountain Ski Resort, a Business Entity, Form Unknown, and Does 1-500, Defendants-Appellees., 182 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999) a California Corporation; Robert Pool, Dba Cathy'S Country Cottages; Mark Twain Hannah, Dba Front Desk Vacation Rentals, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Snow Summit, Inc., a California Corporation; Richard Kun, an Individual; Fritz Uppenlatz, Dba Forest Shores Estates (Inn); Joyce Reed, Dba Grey Squirrel Resort; Gerry Taylor, Dba Bear Mountain Trading Co.; Bruce Voight, Dba Alpine Slide At Magic Mountain; Loren Haffen, Dba Boulder Creek Resort, Dba Holloway'S Marina & Rv Park, Dba North Shore Landing; Robert Mcdonald, Dba Shores Acres Lodge & Vacation Rentals; Big Bear Lake Resort Association; Bear Mountain, Inc., Dba Bear Mountain Ski Resort, a Business Entity, Form Unknown, and Does 1-500, Defendants-Appellees.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - Roy P. Windham Et Al., on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. American Brands, Inc., Et Al., Appellees., 539 F.2d 1016 (4th Cir. 1976)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Les Shockley Racing, Inc.; Les Shockley; Robert W. Correll; Gary G. Cerveny; Douglas J. Malewicki; Aero-Visions, Inc.; Gary M. Krolczyk; Larry C. Parks; Dorothy M. Mcclure, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. National Hot Rod Association; K & K Insurance Agency, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. Les Shockley Racing, Inc.; Les Shockley; Robert W. Correll; Gary G. Cerveny; Douglas J. Malewicki; Aero-Visions, Inc.; Gary M. Krolczyk; Larry C. Parks; Dorothy M. Mcclure, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. National Hot Rod Association, Defendant-Appellant, and K & K Insurance Agency, Inc., Defendant., 884 F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 1989)

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court PARAMOUNT FAMOUS LASKY CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 30 (1930)

282 U.S. 30

PARAMOUNT FAMOUS LASKY CORPORATION et al. v. UNITED STATES. No. 83. Argued Oct. 27, 1930. Decided Nov. 24, 1930.[ Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation v. United

[Page 282 U.S. 30, 44]

In order to establish violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, it is not necessary to show that the challenged arrangement suppresses all competition between the parties or that the parties themselves are discontented with the arrangement. The interest of the public in the preservation of competition is the primary consideration. The prohibitions of the statute cannot 'be evaded by good motives. The law is its own measure of right and wrong, of what it permits, or forbids, and the judgment of the courts cannot be set up against it in a supposed accommodation of its policy with the good intention of parties, and, it may be, of some good results.' Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. United States, 226 U.S. 20, 49, 33 S. Ct. 9, 15.

Upon examination of the record, we cannot say that the decree of the court below is inconsistent with the stipulated facts or with proper regard to what that court held in respect of the facts.

The challenged decree must be affirmed. Footnotes

Footnote 1 Eighteenth. The parties hereto agree that before either of them shall resort to any court to determine, enforce or protect the legal rights of either hereunder, each shall submit to the Board of Arbitration ( established or constituted pursuant to the Rules of Arbitration filed with the American Arbitration Association, 342 Madison Avenue, New York City, bearing date May 1, 1928 and identified by the sig

natures of the Contract Committee appointed at the 1927 Motion Picture Trade Practice Conference, a copy of which will be furnished to the Exhibitor upon request in the city wherein is situated the exchange of the Distributor from which the Exhibitor is served or if there be no such Board of Arbitration in such city then to the Board of Arbitration in the city nearest thereto (unless the parties hereto agree in writing that such submission shall be made to a Board of Arbitration located in another specified city), all claims and controversies arising hereunder for determination pursuant to the said Rules of Arbitration and the rules of procedure and practice adopted by such Board of Arbitration.

The parties hereto further agree to abide by and forthwith comply with any decision and award of such Board of Arbitration in any such arbitration proceeding, and agree and consent that any such decision or award shall be enforceable in or by any court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the laws of such jurisdiction now or hereafter in force; and each party hereto hereby waives the right of trial by jury upon any issue arising under this contract, and agrees to accept as conclusive the findings of fact made by any such Board of Arbitration, and consents to the introduction of such findings in evidence in any judicial proceeding.

In the event that the Exhibitor shall fail or refuse to consent to submit to arbitration any claim or controversy arising under this or any other Standard Exhibition Contract which the Exhibitor may have with the Distributor or any other distributor or to abide by and forthwith comply with any decision or award of such Board of Arbitration upon any such claim or controversy so submitted, the Distributor may, at its option, demand, for its protection and as security for the performance by the Exhibitor of this and all other existing contracts between the parties hereto, payment by the Exhibitor of an additional sum not exceeding $500 under each existing contract, such sum to be retained by the Distributor until the complete performance

of all such contracts and then applied, at the option of the Distributor, against any sums finally due or against any damages determined by said Board of Arbitration to be due to the Distributor, the balance, if any to be returned to the Exhibitor; and in the event of the Exhibitor's failure to pay such additional sum within seven (7) days after demand, the Distributor may by written notice to the Exhibitor suspend service hereunder until said sum shall be paid and/or terminate this contract.

In the event that the Distributor shall fail or refuse to consent to the submission to arbitration of any claim or controversy arising under this or any other Standard Exhibition Contract providing for arbitration which the Distributor may have with the Exhibitor, or to abide by and forthwith comply with any decision or award of such Board of Arbitration upon any such claim or controversy so submitted, within the number of days specified in Article Twenty-Second opposite the name of the City in which such Board of Arbitration is located, the Exhibitor may at his option terminate this and any other existing contract between the Exhibitor and the Distributor by mailing notice by registered mail within two (2) weeks after such failure or refusal, and in addition the Distributor shall not be entitled to redress from such Board of Arbitration upon any claim or claims against any exhibitor until the Distributor shall have complied with such decision, and in the meanwhile the provisions of the first paragraph of this Article Eighteenth shall not apply to any such claim or claims.

Any such termination by either party, however, shall be without prejudice to any other right or remedy which the party so terminating may have by reason of any such breach of contract by the other party.

The provisions of this contract relating to arbitration shall be construed according to the law of the State of New York.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access