Connection lost
Server error
Barry Wright Corporation v. Itt Grinnell Corporation Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A monopolist offered a major customer deep discounts for large, multi-year orders. A potential competitor sued, alleging predatory pricing. The court found that because the prices were above the monopolist’s total costs, they were not illegal, even if intended to exclude a rival.
Legal Significance: Establishes a bright-line rule in the First Circuit that prices above both incremental and average total costs are per se lawful and cannot be deemed predatory under Sherman Act § 2, rejecting more subjective, intent-based tests.
Barry Wright Corporation v. Itt Grinnell Corporation Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Pacific Scientific held a monopoly in the domestic market for mechanical snubbers, with a market share exceeding 90%. ITT Grinnell, a major buyer representing approximately 50% of the market, contracted with Barry Wright Corporation to develop a competing snubber line. When Barry failed to meet its production deadlines, Pacific, aware of the competitive threat, offered Grinnell substantial price discounts (25-30% off list) in exchange for multi-year, large-volume purchase commitments. The district court found these discounted prices remained above Pacific’s average total costs. The agreements also contained a stringent non-cancellation clause requiring full payment even if Grinnell did not take delivery. Facing Barry’s delays, Grinnell accepted Pacific’s offer, effectively foreclosing Barry from its most significant potential customer. Barry subsequently sued Pacific for monopolization under Sherman Act § 2, alleging the pricing and contract terms were exclusionary.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a monopolist engage in unlawful exclusionary conduct under Sherman Act § 2 by offering a key customer discounted prices that, while intended to exclude a potential competitor, remain above the monopolist’s average total costs?
No. The court affirmed the judgment for the defendant, Pacific. The court Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum do
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a monopolist engage in unlawful exclusionary conduct under Sherman Act § 2 by offering a key customer discounted prices that, while intended to exclude a potential competitor, remain above the monopolist’s average total costs?
Conclusion
This case establishes a key circuit-level precedent creating a safe harbor for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis
Legal Rule
“[T]he Sherman Act does not make unlawful prices that exceed both incremental Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo con
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on whether Pacific's actions constituted improper “exclusionary” conduct Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupi
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A monopolist does not engage in predatory pricing if its prices