In order for a restraint to run afoul of the antitrust laws, however, it must be 'unreasonable.' Certain conduct has been held to be unreasonable per se, i. or conspiracy, in restraint of trade.' 15 U.S.C. Section 1 of the Sherman Act proscribes 'Every contract, combination. It is clear, therefore, that we are simply dealing with FDI's rejection of appellant's application to become an additional dealer in the Portland area. The court mentioned in a footnote that 'Plaintiff claims there was an existing contract but the trial court ruled against plaintiff on this point and plaintiff does not appeal from this portion of the court's ruling.' Id. In fact, in a state court action arising out of the same set of facts the Court of Appeals of Oregon has stated 'there was no existing contract between plaintiff and Fiat but only the prospect of one.' Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc. Although appellant, on occasion, has maintained that FDI breached an existing contract, we note that this is simply an antitrust action. Appellant continually claims that, as a result of this alleged monopoly position, Wakehouse's profit margins have been excessively high.īefore proceeding to a discussion of the legal issues which are raised on appeal, it is important to emphasize one issue that is not involved. Because Fiats, in appellant's opinion, constitute a separate market, Wakehouse's position as the sole dealer in the Portland area allows it an unrestrained power to exact exorbitant profits in its sales of Fiat cars, parts, service and warranty work. Appellant's definition of the relevant market is based on its unsubstantiated belief that for a sizeable number of customers only a Fiat will do. The relevant market is defined as Fiat cars, parts, service and warranty work in the Portland area. Appellant maintains that the result of Wakehouse's exercise of 'veto' power over the appointment of a new dealer has not been good 'for Fiat, for customers, for competition in general, and certainly not for Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo.' The negative impact on competition is premised upon appellant's assertion that Wakehouse has a monopoly in the relevant product and geographic market.

Ron tonkin gran turismo