Sec. 35-29. Acts unlawful where effect is substantial lessening of competition or creation of monopoly.

Every lease, sale or contract for the furnishing of services or for the sale of commodities, or for the fixing of prices charged therefor, or for the giving or selling of a discount or rebate therefrom, on the condition or understanding that the lessee or purchaser shall not deal in the services or the commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, shall be unlawful where the effect of such lease or sale or contract for sale or such condition or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any part of trade or commerce and where such goods or services are for the use, consumption or resale in this state.

(1971, P.A. 608, S. 6.)

Notation

Cited. 169 C. 344. Declaration of covenants and restrictions unlawful per se if either (1) party has sufficient economic power in the tying product or (2) a not insubstantial amount of commerce is effected; court thus adopted Clayton Act test in determining if violation of statute occurred. 181 C. 655. Trial court incorrectly concluded that plaintiff nonunion contractor, as an unsuccessful bidder in a municipal bidding process, did not have standing to prosecute its claim against the city where city enforced a project labor agreement in the pre-bid specifications that required the successful bidder to perform all project work with union labor. 303 C. 402.

An initial contract might not violate the antitrust laws at the time of its formation but arguably could become violative of those same laws when one of the contracting parties later gains unlawful dominance and control over a market as a result of a series of contracts or acquisitions. 104 CA 685.

Cited. 33 CS 219.