Back Issues & Abstracts

Note: 

Antitrust—Attempt to Monopolize—A Shortage Does Not Affect the Definition of the Relevant Market.  Mullis v. ARCO Petroleum Corp., 502 F.2d 290 (7^th Cir. 1974), 53 TEXAS L. REV. 551 (1975). 

In Mullis, the Seventh Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s claim that ARCO’s cancellation of a supply contract with him as an “attempt to monopolize” under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.  The “attempt to monopolize” offense typically requires a showing of an intent to monopolize and a dangerous probability of monopolization.  Other courts have adopted a so-called “sliding scale” test, where the probability required varies inversely with the level of anti-competitive conduct exhibited by the defendant.  The Second Circuit refused to narrow the relevant market to ARCO products for purposes of assessing the probability of monopolization.  In this note, the author argues that the judicial formulations of the “attempt to monopolize” offense are unsuccessful at preventing anti-competitive practices, and that the ruling in Mullis exemplifies this inadequacy.