Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

(DOWNLOAD) "Earl Metts v. Clark Oil & Refining" by Eastern District, Division Two Missouri Court of Appeals # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

Earl Metts v. Clark Oil & Refining

📘 Read Now     📥 Download


eBook details

  • Title: Earl Metts v. Clark Oil & Refining
  • Author : Eastern District, Division Two Missouri Court of Appeals
  • Release Date : January 16, 1981
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 65 KB

Description

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the trial court in favor of defendant Clark Oil & Refining Corporation. Plaintiffs were sixteen dealers and former dealers who leased gasoline service stations from Clark. They alleged in six counts of their first amended petition violation of the Missouri Antitrust Law, § 416.011 through 416.161, RSMo 1978, as well as common law counts of misrepresentation, economic coercion, breach of contract, interference with business and violation of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs sought with other relief, treble damages, punitive damages and an injunction preventing Clark from competing with its own dealers and attorney's fees. Count I of plaintiffs' first amended petition alleges that Clark, other persons and plaintiffs themselves, beginning at a date unknown to plaintiffs and continuing at least up to the date of the filing of the first amended petition, January 4, 1977, engaged in unlawful contracts, combinations and conspiracies in unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of § 416.031(1), RSMo 1978. Count I also alleges that these same parties engaged in acts to monopolize, to attempt to monopolize and to conspire to monopolize trade or commerce in the State of Missouri and in St. Louis County, Missouri, in violation of § 416.031(2), RSMo 1978. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Clark was attempting to drive them out of business by competing with them in order to convert the plaintiff dealers' stations into company-operated stations. The dealers set forth that company stations competed with them by charging too low a retail price for gas and that the tank-wagon (wholesale) price set by the company for dealer stations was too high for them to compete effectively. The five other counts of plaintiffs' first amended petition restate the antitrust violations as well as setting forth their common law claims.


PDF Books "Earl Metts v. Clark Oil & Refining" Online ePub Kindle