Connection lost
Server error
ZF MERITOR, LLC v. EATON CORP. 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 dominant transmission manufacturer used long-term agreements with high market-share rebates to allegedly foreclose a competitor. The court held that above-cost pricing does not automatically immunize conduct that otherwise constitutes unlawful de facto exclusive dealing under a rule of reason analysis.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that the Brooke Group price-cost test for predatory pricing does not create a safe harbor for all conduct involving above-cost prices. De facto exclusive dealing claims can proceed under the rule of reason even without proof of below-cost pricing.
ZF MERITOR, LLC v. EATON CORP. 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
Eaton Corp., a monopolist in the North American heavy-duty (HD) truck transmission market, faced new competition from ZF Meritor, a joint venture that introduced an innovative automated transmission. In response, Eaton entered into long-term agreements (LTAs) with all four of the market’s direct purchasers, known as Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). These five-to-seven-year LTAs offered substantial rebates conditioned on OEMs purchasing a high percentage (e.g., 70-97.5%) of their transmissions from Eaton. The agreements also contained provisions requiring OEMs to feature Eaton as the ‘standard’ or ‘preferred’ offering in their data books (customer catalogs), sometimes to the exclusion of competitors, and to ‘preferentially price’ Eaton’s products, which resulted in competitors’ products being priced artificially higher. Throughout the relevant period, Eaton’s prices, even after the rebates, remained above its own costs. ZF Meritor alleged the LTAs constituted de facto exclusive dealing that foreclosed it from competing on the merits, ultimately forcing it from the market. A jury found for ZF Meritor, and Eaton moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing its above-cost pricing made its conduct per se lawful.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the defendant’s use of long-term agreements with high-percentage, above-cost market-share rebates constitute unlawful monopolization and de facto exclusive dealing under the rule of reason, or was the conduct per se lawful because the defendant’s prices were not below cost?
Yes, the defendant’s conduct could be found unlawful under the rule of 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 de
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
Did the defendant’s use of long-term agreements with high-percentage, above-cost market-share rebates constitute unlawful monopolization and de facto exclusive dealing under the rule of reason, or was the conduct per se lawful because the defendant’s prices were not below cost?
Conclusion
The case establishes that a monopolist's use of conditional, above-cost discounts can 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 volu
Legal Rule
The *Brooke Group* price-cost test, which governs predatory pricing claims, is not 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 adip
Legal Analysis
The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of Eaton's motion for judgment as 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 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 exercitatio
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A monopolist’s above-cost pricing does not provide a safe harbor from