Law Commons^™

Federal Antitrust Laws - Exclusive Dealing - Standards Of Illegality Under Section 3 Of The Clayton Act, Judd L. Bacon S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

In a recent treatment of exclusive dealing arrangements, Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., the Supreme Court enunciates with some care the standards to be applied in judging the legality of requirements contracts under section 3 of the Clayton Act. This comment analyzes the merits and the impact of this needed clarification of a controversial area of antitrust law.

Exclusive marketing arrangements manifest themselves in various forms, and it is not uncommon to find more than one variety in a given contract. This inquiry, however, will be restricted largely to full requirements contracts, obligating a buyer to purchase …

Concurrent Causation In Insurance Contracts, William Conant Brewer Jr.

Michigan Law Review

A great deal of work and thought has been devoted to concurrent causation problems in the field of torts. Less attention has been paid to the insurance cases, and no serious effort has been made to formulate the separate rules applicable to them. It is the thesis of this article that concurrent causation problems which arise under an insurance contract must be handled somewhat differently from those which arise in connection with tort litigation, and that the tendency to borrow rules of law from the larger tort field and apply them to the smaller volume of insurance cases can only …

Contacts - Subrogation - Partial Subrogation Of A Cause Of Action For Personal Injuries, Jerome M. Salle

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, an incorporated home for the aged, provided all essential medical care to one of its residents under the provisions of a life-care contract between it and the resident. On the basis of a contract clause which purported to subrogate plaintiff to the right of the resident to recover medical expenses caused by the negligence of third parties, plaintiff brought an action to recover certain medical expenses incurred from the party who was allegedly responsible for the injuries and death of the resident. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint for failure to state a cause of action …

Past Practice And The Administration Of Collective Bargaining Agreements, Richard Mittenthal

Michigan Law Review

In a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Mr. Justice Douglas, speaking for the majority, stated that "the labor arbitrator's source of law is not confined to the express provisions of the contract, as the industrial common law-the practices of the industry and the shop-is equally a part of the collective bargaining agreement although not expressed in it." When compared to actual management-union experiences in contract administration, this dictum seems unduly broad. It may be premature as well, for no coherent "rationale of grievance arbitration" has yet been developed. If such a rationale is to be achieved, far more work …

Conflict Of Laws-Law Applicable In Federal Courts-Federal Law Applied To Contractual Relations Of Admiralty Lawyer, Robert E. Thorne S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff attorney was retained by a Spanish seaman to prosecute personal injury claims under the Jones Act and the general maritime law. Defendant shipping company induced the seaman to fire his lawyer and to recover instead under his Spanish employment contract. Plaintiff sued the shipping company in tort for interference with contractual relations. In a federal diversity suit, held, for plaintiff. Federal common law should be applied to determine the validity of the contract and the claim of tortious interference with it. Greenberg v. Panama Transp. Co., 185 F. Supp. 320 (D. Mass. 1960).

No-Strike Clauses In The Federal Courts, Frank H. Stewart

Michigan Law Review

One consideration will support several promises. A promisor may extract more than one promise in return for his single undertaking to do - or not to do. It depends upon his bargaining power. His single undertaking may be so valuable that several promises are necessary to induce him to act, or not to act. He is privileged to hold out for the best deal. The law does not examine his motives or reduce his demands. And from this arises the common- law principle that one consideration may support several promises.

Labor Law - Arbitration - Restriction Of Judicial Intervention Into The Arbitration Process, James J. White

Michigan Law Review

Respondent company laid off a number of employees as a result of its decision to contract out maintenance work formerly done in the company shop. After the grievance procedure failed to resolve petitioner union's claim that this violated the contract provision against lockouts, and the company refused the union's request for arbitration, the union sought specific performance of the promise to arbitrate contained in the collective bargaining contract. In dismissing the plea, the district court found that contracting out work was solely a function of management and therefore not arbitrable because the contract specifically excluded from arbitration "matters which are …

Sales - Privity - Disclaimer Of Implied Warranty, Richard W. Odgers

Michigan Law Review

Husband purchased a new automobile from a dealer. The contract of sale contained on its reverse side an express warranty from the manufacturer to the "original purchaser" providing for the replacement of any parts which were returned to the manufacturer and were in its judgment defective. The warranty was " ... expressly in lieu of all other warranties expressed or implied .... " The dealer warranty was substantially identical to that extended by the manufacturer; both adhered to the form prescribed by the Automobile Manufacturer's Association. Shortly after the delivery of the automobile, wife was injured in a collision caused …

Sales - Implied Warranty - Privity Of Contract As A Prerequisite To Recovery From Manufacturer, John L. Peschel S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff sustained injuries in the course of his employment when a defective abrasive wheel, while being used in its intended manner, exploded in his face. The abrasive wheel was purchased by plaintiff's employer directly from the manufacturer. Plaintiff sought recovery from the manufacturer on two grounds: negligence in the manufacture of the abrasive wheel and breach of implied warranty for fitness of purpose. The negligence issue was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict adverse to the plaintiff. The manufacturer's demurrer to the cause of action based upon implied warranty was sustained by the trial court. On appeal from …