For Your Data Aspen Skiing Co. V. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. Representative Brief Summary

Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. illustration brief summary

CASE FACTS
Aspen (P) owned 3 ski resorts (mountains) inward Aspen, Colorado, in addition to Highlands (D) owned the fourth. Until 1977, the iv mountains sold varying types of all-Aspen tickets.  They shared revenues based upon usage of the resorts. In the 1977-78 season, Ski Co. refused to offering the all-Aspen ticket, unless Highlands was to hit got a fixed per centum of the revenue. In 1978, Ski Co. declined to popular off on offering the all-Aspen ticket, in addition to offered Highlands a “deal they could non accept,” and, furthermore, refused to divide revenues amongst Highlands paying an independent auditor at its ain expense.  At this betoken Highlands marketplace pose percentage rapidly declined, from 20.5% inward 1976-77 to 11% inward 1980-81.

DISCUSSION

The Court constitute that at that topographic point was sufficient evidence for the jury to hit upward one's heed that Ski Co. was non motivated past times efficiency concerns in addition to that Ski Co. was willing to sacrifice short-run benefits in addition to consumer goodwill inward telephone commutation for the long-term exclusion of Highlands.

• The Court noted that multi-area tickets are used inward other competitive markets, which allowed for an inference that they satisfy consumer demand.
• The Court assumes that the jury concluded at that topographic point was no valid draw of piece of occupation concern argue for the “important modify inward a designing of distribution that had originated inward a competitive marketplace pose in addition to persisted for several years.”

Analysis in addition to Notes

• Many commentators hit got questioned the marketplace pose Definition every bit express to Aspen, although the Court was required to hit got the marketplace pose Definition that was constitute past times the jury.
• From an economical betoken of view, exclusion of rivals and harm to competition essentially ensures that the harm outweighs whatsoever potential benefits.
• The Court examined claims that the all-Aspen ticket is superior inward quality, that Highland’s ability to compete is impaired, in addition to looks for a [non-existent] business justification from defendant.
• Intent tin live on proved through specific statements, threatening conduct, as good as actions unrelated to efficiency (see Footnote 39, which suggests that this is non the total dominion of argue analysis).
• The Court highlighted the existing relationship.  
• The courtroom suggests that at that topographic point is no duty to deal, instead at that topographic point is a duty to popular off on dealing.

Share this post