50-101. Trusts defined and declared unlawful and void. Except as provided in K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 50-163, and amendments thereto, a trust is a combination of capital, skill, or acts, by two or more persons, for either, any or all of the following purposes:
First. To create or carry out restrictions in trade or commerce, or to carry out restrictions in the full and free pursuit of any business authorized or permitted by the laws of this state.
Second. To increase or reduce the price of merchandise, produce or commodities, or to control the cost or rates of insurance.
Third. To prevent competition in the manufacture, making, transportation, sale or purchase of merchandise, produce or commodities.
Fourth. To fix any standard or figure, whereby such person's price to the public shall be, in any manner, controlled or established, any article or commodity of merchandise, produce or commerce intended for sale, use or consumption in this state.
Fifth. To make or enter into, or execute or carry out, any contract, obligation or agreement of any kind or description by which such person shall: (a) Bind or have to bind themselves not to sell, manufacture, dispose of or transport any article or commodity, or article of trade, use, merchandise, commerce or consumption below a common standard figure;
(b) agree in any manner to keep the price of such article, commodity or transportation at a fixed or graded figure;
(c) in any manner establish or settle the price of any article or commodity or transportation between them or themselves and others to preclude a free and unrestricted competition among themselves or others in transportation, sale or manufacture of any such article or commodity; or
(d) agree to pool, combine or unite any interest they may have in connection with the manufacture, sale or transportation of any such article or commodity, that such person's price in any manner is affected. Any such combinations are hereby declared to be against public policy, unlawful and void.
History: L. 1897, ch. 265, § 1; R.S. 1923, 50-101; L. 2000, ch. 136, § 4; L. 2013, ch. 102, § 2; April 18.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"A Glimpse at a Plaintiff's Remedies Under Kansas' Antitrust Laws," Kenton C. Granger, 8 W.L.J. 1 (1968).
"Antitrust-Inquisitions—Right to Counsel," Timothy E. McKee, 9 W.L.J. 146 (1969).
This and following sections cited in discussion of consumer protection in Tenth Judicial District, William P. Coates, Jr., 44 J.B.A.K. 67, 70, 106 (1975).
"Y2K: An active year for judicial legislation," Paul T. Davis, 69 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 12 (2000).
"A Century Behind? The Kansas Supreme Court Opts Out of the Rule of Reason in O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. [277 P.3d 1062 (Kan. 2012)]," Michael L. Fessinger, 52 W.L.J. 323 (2013).
"The Revised KRTA: O'Brien and the Legislative Response," Joshua A. Ney, 53 W.L.J. 265 (2014).
Attorney General's Opinions:
City ordinances; validity of local preference legislation. 85-121.
Newspaper's discounted advertisement rate; restraint of trade. 93-51.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Section cited in considering validity of "scrip law." The State v. Haun, 61 Kan. 146, 151, 59 P. 340.
2. Act is valid and constitutional. The State v. Smiley, 65 Kan. 240, 69 P. 199 (Affirmed: Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U.S. 447, 25 S. Ct. 289, 49 L. Ed. 546); The State v. Jack, 69 Kan. 387, 76 P. 911 (Affirmed: Jack v. Kansas, 199 U.S. 372, 26 S. Ct. 73, 50 L. Ed. 234); In re Bell, 69 Kan. 855, 76 P. 1129.
3. Agreement by dealers limiting right to buy grain held unlawful. The State v. Smiley, 65 Kan. 240, 69 P. 199. Affirmed: Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U.S. 447, 25 S. Ct. 289, 49 L. Ed. 546.
4. Act repealed, L. 1891, ch. 158; association dealing in livestock held a trust. The State v. Wilson, 73 Kan. 334, 343, 80 P. 639, 84 P. 737.
5. Purpose of act stated. The State v. Harvester Co., 79 Kan. 371, 378, 99 P. 603.
6. Remedies for ousting corporation from state considered. The State v. Harvester Co., 81 Kan. 610, 106 P. 1053.
7. Act does not repeal L. 1889, ch. 257 (K.S.A. 50-112 through 50-120). The State v. Lumber Co., 83 Kan. 399, 111 P. 484.
8. Cause of action based on unlawful conspiracy not heard. Patterson v. Glass Co., 91 Kan. 201, 137 P. 955.
9. System of ice delivery by several producers held unlawful. The State v. Ice Co., 112 Kan. 497, 211 P. 627.
10. Contracts for exclusive sale of merchandise are not forbidden; principle applied to automobile agency. McConkey v. Motor Co., 112 Kan. 560, 211 P. 631.
11. Contract requiring retailer to maintain seller's list prices violates statute. Mills v. Ordnance Co., 113 Kan. 479, 215 P. 314.
12. Evidence sufficient to uphold finding of grocery monopoly. State, ex rel., v. Anthony Wholesale Grocery Co., 118 Kan. 394, 234 P. 992.
13. Injunction to prevent insurance combination; evidence sustained judgment for defendant. Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 119 Kan. 452, 239 P. 974.
14. Contract requiring wheat grower to sell to association upheld. Wheat Growers Ass'n v. Rowan, 123 Kan. 169, 254 P. 326; Wheat Growers Ass'n v. Oden, 124 Kan. 179, 257 P. 975.
15. What constitutes monopoly considered; one person buying up picture shows not within act. Good v. Dickinson, 128 Kan. 481, 485, 278 P. 730.
16. Conspiracy between undertakers to eliminate competition held to violate statute. Gard v. Holmes, 132 Kan. 443, 445, 295 P. 716.
17. Exclusive right to make and sell article not a monopoly. Sage v. Oil Country Specialties Mfg. Co., 134 Kan. 215, 5 P.2d 1091.
18. Contract held to violate price-fixing provision of act. United Artists Corp. v. Mills, 135 Kan. 655, 656, 11 P.2d 1025.
19. Effect of copyright law on section not considered. United Artists Corp. v. Mills, 136 Kan. 33, 34, 12 P.2d 785.
20. Gas purchase contract held not void as contrary to public policy. Southwest Kan. Oil & G. Co. v. Argus P. L. Co., 141 Kan. 287, 293, 39 P.2d 906.
21. Contract for purchase and resale price of ice held invalid and unenforceable. Joslin v. Steffen Ice & Ice Cream Co., 143 Kan. 409, 411, 54 P.2d 941.
22. Void contract held indivisible and note and mortgage unenforceable. Morrison v. Brandt, 145 Kan. 942, 950, 67 P.2d 584.
23. Action based upon claimed violation of this act barred by statute of limitations. McCue v. Franklin, 156 Kan. 1, 6, 131 P.2d 704.
24. Cited; breach of contract action; petition insufficient. Sullivan v. Paramount Film Distributing Co., 164 Kan. 125, 130, 187 P.2d 360.
25. Contract good if reasonable and not inimical to public welfare. Heckard v. Park, 164 Kan. 216, 217, 223, 188 P.2d 926.
26. Mentioned; action to enjoin picketing; exclusive federal jurisdiction found. City Motors v. International Ass'n of Machinists, Lodge No. 778, A. F. of L., 179 Kan. 157, 159, 292 P.2d 1102.
27. Mentioned; jurisdiction of N.L.R.B. and of state courts in labor disputes discussed. Hyde Park Dairies v. Local Union No. 795, 182 Kan. 440, 448, 321 P.2d 564.
28. Cases reviewed; milk hauling contract not in violation hereof; statutes construed; no presumption contract illegal; burden of proof; reasonableness of restraint. Okerberg v. Crable, 185 Kan. 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 218, 341 P.2d 966.
29. Contract requiring distributing company to purchase all gas from one company invalid. Landon v. Court of Industrial Relations, 269 F. 423.
30. Action hereunder; testimony taken at inquisition not taken in violation of constitutional rights nor unlawfully. State, ex rel. v. American Oil Co., 202 Kan. 185, 186, 446 P.2d 754.
31. Antitrust action against investor-owned public utility; cities entitled to power generated at prevailing rates. City of Chanute v. Kansas Gas & Elec. Co., 564 F. Supp. 1416, 1417 (1983).
32. Cited; allegations of antitrust violations against provider's threatened termination of contracting provider agreement with hospital examined. Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., 635 F. Supp. 1287, 1333 (1986).
33. Section does not authorize private, independent cause of action for unlawful restraint of trade violations. Booth v. Electronic Data Systems, 799 F. Supp. 1086, 1088, 1092 (1992).
34. Authority of insurance commissioner to set insurance rates may not be collaterally attacked; insurance code in conjunction with filed rate doctrine supercedes Kansas antitrust act. Amundson & Associates Art Studio v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 26 Kan. App. 2d 489, 494, 988 P.2d 1208 (1999).
35. Federal drug law did not preempt state law in unfair competition claim. Hunt v. Daily, 54 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1047 (1999).
36. Plaintiff lacked standing to assert antitrust claims. Orr v. Beamon, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1211 (1999).
37. Plaintiffs claim of Kansas restraint of trade act violation raised federal questions allowing for removal. Schecher v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 317 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1255 (2004).
38. The "rule of reason" of federal antitrust jurisprudence does not apply to lawsuits under the Kansas restraint of trade act. O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc., 294 Kan. 318, 277 P.3d 1062 (2012).
39. District court erred in dismissing claims under the Kansas consumer protection act and Kansas restraint of trade act where petition, related to pet food manufacturers' prescription practices, sufficiently apprised defendant of the facts upon which the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to relief. Kucharski-Berger v. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., 60 Kan. App. 2d 510, 494 P.3d 283 (2021).
|
|