§480-9 - Monopolization.

§480-9  Monopolization.  No person shall
monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other
person to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce in any commodity in any
section of the State. [L 1961, c 190, §7; Supp, §205A-7; HRS §480-9]

Case Notes

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

  One element of conspiracy to monopolize is specific intent to
control prices or destroy competition in any line of trade or commerce.  Test
for specific intent is the same, whether applied to conspiracy or attempt to
monopolize.  491 F. Supp. 1199.

  Defendants lacked necessary market share and hence monopoly
power in service jobbing of all tobacco products in Hawaii.  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 monopoly power over own lands not illegal
where not used to injure competitors.  594 F. Supp. 1480.

  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.

  Elements of offense of monopoly.  63 H. 289, 627 P.2d 260.

  Federal statutes and decisions are to be used as guides.  63
H. 289, 627 P.2d 260.

  Where appellants failed to adduce evidence of a causal
connection  between appellees' "anticompetitive" conduct and
appellees' alleged monopoly power, trial court properly concluded that there
was insufficient evidence to sustain appellants' attempt to monopolize claim
under this section; thus, as appellants failed to prove a violation of chapter
480, appellants had no standing to bring claim for relief under §480-13(a).  91
H. 224, 982 P.2d 853.

  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 §480-4 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 §480-4 or
this section.  91 H. 224, 982 P.2d 853.