Sec. 35-28. Acts unlawful when purpose or effect is restraint of trade or commerce. - Connecticut Statutes

State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > Connecticut > Title35 > Chap624 > Sec35-28

      Sec. 35-28. Acts unlawful when purpose or effect is restraint of trade or commerce. Without limiting section 35-26, every contract, combination, or conspiracy is unlawful when the same are for the purpose, or have the effect, of: (a) Fixing, controlling, or maintaining prices, rates, quotations, or fees in any part of trade or commerce; (b) fixing, controlling, maintaining, limiting, or discontinuing the production, manufacture, mining, sale, or supply of any part of trade or commerce; (c) allocating or dividing customers or markets, either functional or geographical, in any part of trade or commerce; or (d) refusing to deal, or coercing, persuading, or inducing third parties to refuse to deal with another person.

      (1971, P.A. 608, S. 5.)

      Cited. 169 C. 344. Cited. 184 C. 285. Cited. 192 C. 460.

      Cited. 31 CS 110. Cited. 33 CS 217. Cited. 35 CS 136.

      Subsec. (b):

      Exclusivity provisions between newspaper and syndicators did not constitute per se violations of antitrust statutes. 261 C. 673.

      Subsec. (d):

      Trial court erred in finding restrictive covenant in shopping center lease "per se" illegal since "rule of reason" was appropriate standard to apply. 177 C. 218. Cited. 181 C. 655. Cited. 195 C. 399. Exclusivity provisions between newspaper and syndicators did not constitute per se violations of antitrust statutes. 261 C. 673.

      Covenant in shopping park lease prohibiting any other tenant from selling similar food within 400 feet of leased premises appears to violate this provision, so temporary injunction enforcing covenant should not be issued. 34 CS 74.

State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > Connecticut > Title35 > Chap624 > Sec35-28

      Sec. 35-28. Acts unlawful when purpose or effect is restraint of trade or commerce. Without limiting section 35-26, every contract, combination, or conspiracy is unlawful when the same are for the purpose, or have the effect, of: (a) Fixing, controlling, or maintaining prices, rates, quotations, or fees in any part of trade or commerce; (b) fixing, controlling, maintaining, limiting, or discontinuing the production, manufacture, mining, sale, or supply of any part of trade or commerce; (c) allocating or dividing customers or markets, either functional or geographical, in any part of trade or commerce; or (d) refusing to deal, or coercing, persuading, or inducing third parties to refuse to deal with another person.

      (1971, P.A. 608, S. 5.)

      Cited. 169 C. 344. Cited. 184 C. 285. Cited. 192 C. 460.

      Cited. 31 CS 110. Cited. 33 CS 217. Cited. 35 CS 136.

      Subsec. (b):

      Exclusivity provisions between newspaper and syndicators did not constitute per se violations of antitrust statutes. 261 C. 673.

      Subsec. (d):

      Trial court erred in finding restrictive covenant in shopping center lease "per se" illegal since "rule of reason" was appropriate standard to apply. 177 C. 218. Cited. 181 C. 655. Cited. 195 C. 399. Exclusivity provisions between newspaper and syndicators did not constitute per se violations of antitrust statutes. 261 C. 673.

      Covenant in shopping park lease prohibiting any other tenant from selling similar food within 400 feet of leased premises appears to violate this provision, so temporary injunction enforcing covenant should not be issued. 34 CS 74.

State Codes and Statutes

Back To Homepage

State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > Connecticut > Title35 > Chap624 > Sec35-28

      Sec. 35-28. Acts unlawful when purpose or effect is restraint of trade or commerce. Without limiting section 35-26, every contract, combination, or conspiracy is unlawful when the same are for the purpose, or have the effect, of: (a) Fixing, controlling, or maintaining prices, rates, quotations, or fees in any part of trade or commerce; (b) fixing, controlling, maintaining, limiting, or discontinuing the production, manufacture, mining, sale, or supply of any part of trade or commerce; (c) allocating or dividing customers or markets, either functional or geographical, in any part of trade or commerce; or (d) refusing to deal, or coercing, persuading, or inducing third parties to refuse to deal with another person.

      (1971, P.A. 608, S. 5.)

      Cited. 169 C. 344. Cited. 184 C. 285. Cited. 192 C. 460.

      Cited. 31 CS 110. Cited. 33 CS 217. Cited. 35 CS 136.

      Subsec. (b):

      Exclusivity provisions between newspaper and syndicators did not constitute per se violations of antitrust statutes. 261 C. 673.

      Subsec. (d):

      Trial court erred in finding restrictive covenant in shopping center lease "per se" illegal since "rule of reason" was appropriate standard to apply. 177 C. 218. Cited. 181 C. 655. Cited. 195 C. 399. Exclusivity provisions between newspaper and syndicators did not constitute per se violations of antitrust statutes. 261 C. 673.

      Covenant in shopping park lease prohibiting any other tenant from selling similar food within 400 feet of leased premises appears to violate this provision, so temporary injunction enforcing covenant should not be issued. 34 CS 74.