§480-4  Combinations in restraint of trade,
price-fixing and limitation of production prohibited.  (a)  Every contract,
combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of
trade or commerce in the State, or in any section of this State is illegal.



(b)  Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing no person, exclusive of members of a single business entity
consisting of a sole proprietorship, partnership, trust, or corporation, shall
agree, combine, or conspire with any other person or persons, or enter into,
become a member of, or participate in, any understanding, arrangement, pool, or
trust, to do, directly or indirectly, any of the following acts, in the State
or any section of the State:



(1)  Fix, control, or maintain, the price of any
commodity;



(2)  Limit, control, or discontinue, the production,
manufacture, or sale of any commodity for the purpose or with the result of
fixing, controlling or maintaining its price;



(3)  Fix, control, or maintain, any standard of
quality of any commodity for the purpose or with the result of fixing,
controlling, or maintaining its price;



(4)  Refuse to deal with any other person or persons
for the purpose of effecting any of the acts described in (1) to (3) of this
subsection.



(c)  Notwithstanding the foregoing subsection
(b) and without limiting the application of the foregoing subsection (a) it
shall be lawful for a person to enter into any of the following restrictive
covenants or agreements ancillary to a legitimate purpose not violative of this
chapter, unless the effect thereof may be substantially to lessen competition
or to tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce in any section of the
State:



(1)  A covenant or agreement by the transferor of a
business not to compete within a reasonable area and within a reasonable period
of time in connection with the sale of the business;



(2)  A covenant or agreement between partners not to
compete with the partnership within a reasonable area and for a reasonable
period of time upon the withdrawal of a partner from the partnership;



(3)  A covenant or agreement of the lessee to be
restricted in the use of the leased premises to certain business or
agricultural uses, or covenant or agreement of the lessee to be restricted in
the use of the leased premises to certain business uses and of the lessor to be
restricted in the use of premises reasonably proximate to any such leased
premises to certain business uses;



(4)  A covenant or agreement by an employee or agent
not to use the trade secrets of the employer or principal in competition with
the employee's or agent's employer or principal, during the term of the agency
or thereafter, or after the termination of employment, within such time as may
be reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer or principal,
without imposing undue hardship on the employee or agent. [L 1961, c 190, §2;
Supp, §205A-2; am imp L 1967, c 49, §1; HRS §480-4; gen ch 1985]



 



Cross References



 



  Actions to enforce noncompetition agreements, see §607-14.9.



 



Case Notes



 



  Applies only to commerce in the State. 518 F.2d 913.



  Insufficient evidence of unlawful conspiracy to require all
contractors to contribute to contractor's association fund.  809 F.2d 626.



  Mentioned in discussing availability of estoppel as defense
in private antitrust action.  296 F. Supp. 920.



  Important factors in determining predatory pricing include:
timing of the price cut; particular growth cycle of the firm; circumstances and
duration of the price cut.  513 F. Supp. 726.



  Mere formality of separate incorporation is not, without
more, sufficient to provide the capability for conspiracy. Parent corporation
controlled subsidiary to such a degree that the two entities in substance
constitute a single entity incapable of conspiring with itself.  513 F. Supp.
726.



  Action by shopping center tenant against shopping center
owner.  530 F. Supp. 499.



  Large landowner's parallel lease-only policy not unlawful
conspiracy; standardization of leases not price-fixing.  594 F. Supp. 1480.



  No standing to sue for price-fixing and monopoly since no
showing that alleged price-fixing caused injury.  606 F. Supp. 584.



  Preempted by federal labor regulations. 687 F. Supp. 1453.



  Salesman's Agreement imposed reasonable restrictions on
former employees' contacts with customers where, inter alia, (1) restrictions
regarding customer contact were limited to two years following termination; and
(2) an employee was not prohibited from working for a competitor, but only in
assisting the competitor in selling products that were competitive with the
employer's products; even that restriction applied only when contacting certain
customers.  18 F. Supp. 2d 1116.



  Where defendant, a wholesale food marketer and distributor,
asserted that plaintiff, a common carrier, engaged in an illegal tying
arrangement and that plaintiff worked in concert with another carrier to impair
competition, defendant presented no genuine issue of material fact with respect
to its §480-4 claim for concerted action, and presented a viable claim under
this section for an illegal tying arrangement.  61 F. Supp. 2d 1092.



  Defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim
under this section granted; although the word "commodity" was defined
to include "any other business", the purchase of real estate by an
individual owner could not be considered a business.  338 F. Supp. 2d 1106.



  Mentioned, where plaintiff alleged that defendants' practice
of imposing maximum price restrictions in rebate program for the installation
of solar water heaters violated state and federal antitrust law, and summary
judgment granted for defendants on plaintiffs' claims based on Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act and state antitrust claims.  409 F. Supp. 2d 1206.



  Restraints in subsection (c) are not the only allowable
types; others that are not per se violations of chapter 480 are valid if deemed
reasonable. 57 H. 113, 551 P.2d 163.



  A parent-subsidiary corporate relationship without more is
generally insufficient to establish capacity for unlawful conspiracy.  63 H.
289, 627 P.2d 260.



  Where economic interest of corporation's officer/majority
shareholder's was the same as that of corporation's two wholly-owned
subsidiaries, officer/majority shareholder could not conspire with the
corporation for purposes of §480-9 or this section.  91 H. 224, 982 P.2d 853.



  Where the two companies were wholly-owned subsidiaries of the
same parent corporation and shared a singular economic interest, they could not
constitute a plurality of actors for purposes of a conspiracy under §480-9 or
this section.  91 H. 224, 982 P.2d 853.