KANSAS OFFICE of
  REVISOR of STATUTES

  

Home >> Statutes >> Back


Click to open printable format in new window.Printable Format
 | Next

50-112. Trusts, combinations and agreements in restraint of trade and free competition declared unlawful. Except as provided in K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 50-163, and amendments thereto, all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations between persons made with a view or which tend to prevent full and free competition in the importation, transportation or sale of articles imported into this state, or in the product, manufacture or sale of articles of domestic growth or product of domestic raw material, or for the loan or use of money, or to fix attorney or doctor fees, and all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts or combinations between persons, designed or which tend to advance, reduce or control the price or the cost to the producer or to the consumer of any such products or articles, or to control the cost or rate of insurance, or which tend to advance or control the rate of interest for the loan or use of moneys to the borrower, or any other services, are hereby declared to be against public policy, unlawful and void.

History: L. 1889, ch. 257, § 1; R.S. 1923, 50-112; L. 2000, ch. 136, § 10; L. 2013, ch. 102, § 3; April 18.

Cross References to Related Sections:

Contracts for sale of goods, see 16-112.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Similarity to Clayton-Sherman Acts and recent Kansas antitrust litigation discussed, Kenton C. Granger, 8 W.L.J. 1 (1968).

"Interference with Economic Relations of Attorneys," Martin E. Conrey and Lawrence M. Gurney, 23 W.L.J. 528, 555 (1984).

"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).

"Kansas Antitrust Developments in the 21 st Century: A Perspective from the Attorney General's Office," Derek Schmidt and Lynette R. Bakker, 68 K.L.R. 875 (2020).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Act is valid and constitutional. In re Pinkney, Petitioner, 47 Kan. 89, 27 P. 179; The State v. Phipps, 50 Kan. 609, 31 P. 1097; 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.

2. Word "trade" defined. In re Pinkney, 47 Kan. 89, 91, 27 P. 179; The State v. Phipps, 50 Kan. 609, 31 P. 1097.

3. Insurance combinations held unlawful. The State v. Phipps, 50 Kan. 609, 613, 31 P. 1097.

4. 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.

5. Association of livestock dealers held unlawful. The State v. Wilson, 73 Kan. 334, 343, 80 P. 639, 84 P. 737.

6. Foreign corporations forfeit authority by violating act. The State v. Harvester Co., 81 Kan. 610, 106 P. 1053.

7. Information sufficient, if agreement is characterized in language of statute. The State v. Lumber Co., 83 Kan. 399, 111 P. 484.

8. Court will not entertain action based upon unlawful conspiracy. Patterson v. Glass Co., 91 Kan. 201, 207, 137 P. 955.

9. Contracts for exclusive sale of merchandise are not forbidden. McConkey v. Motor Co., 112 Kan. 560, 211 P. 631.

10. Contract requiring retailer to maintain seller's list prices violates statute. Mills v. Ordnance Co., 113 Kan. 479, 215 P. 314.

11. Conspiracy between undertakers to eliminate competition held to violate statute. Gard v. Holmes, 132 Kan. 443, 444, 445, 295 P. 716.

12. Building contractor's agreement to pay in percentage of successful bid void. Master Builders Ass'n v. Carson, 132 Kan. 606, 296 P. 693.

13. Contract for purchase and sale of ice held invalid and unenforceable. Joslin v. Steffen Ice & Ice Cream Co., 143 Kan. 409, 411, 54 P.2d 941.

14. Void contract held indivisible and note and mortgage unenforceable. Morrison v. Brandt, 145 Kan. 942, 951, 67 P.2d 584.

15. Contract good if reasonable and not inimical to public welfare. Heckard v. Park, 164 Kan. 216, 217, 223, 188 P.2d 926.

16. Cited; damage action against film distributor for failure to deliver film. Sullivan v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 166 Kan. 57, 60, 199 P.2d 502.

17. Agreement not to engage in restaurant business for five years valid. Barton v. Hackney, 167 Kan. 754, 755, 757, 759, 760, 761, 208 P.2d 590.

18. 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.

19. 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, 215, 218, 341 P.2d 966.

20. 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).

21. 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).

22. In malicious prosecution action, no recovery if claim filed was based on reasonable chance of recovery. Bergstrom v. Noah, 266 Kan. 847, 885, 974 P.2d 531 (1999).

23. 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).

24. Plaintiff's 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).

25. 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).

26. The Kansas restraint of trade act, unlike the Sherman act, does not provide for the use of the rule of reason, but still requires a showing of antitrust injury, as, however, emphasized that its law is not the same as its federal counterparts. Suture Express, Inc. v. Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc., 851 F.3d 1029, 1046 (10 th Cir. 2017).


 | Next

LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL
  12/18/2023 Meeting Notice Agenda
  LCC Policies

REVISOR OF STATUTES
  2023 New, Amended and Repealed by KSA
  2023 New, Amended and Repealed by Bill
  2024 Valid Section Numbers
  Chapter 72 Statute Transfer List
  Kansas School Equity & Enhancement Act
  Gannon v. State
  Information for Special Session 2021
  General Info., Legal Analysis & Research
  2022 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2021 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2020 Amended & repealed Statutes
  2019 Amended & Repealed Statutes

USEFUL LINKS
Session Laws

OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES
Kansas Legislature
Administrative Services
Division of Post Audit
Research Department