Full question:
The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (ISTHA) operates the entire tollway system in Illinois. The ISTHA recieves no federal funds and the system is supported by tolls collected. On the tollway system, there are 7 oasis facilities (under separate manageent contract)where gas, food and other services are provided. The ISTHA allows these 7 oasis to advertise (blue logo signs)their services on the approach to each of the 7 oasis. However, the ISTHA will not allow advertising anywhere else on the ISTHA system. This includes hotels. As a result many hotels, motels, restaurants and service stations throughout the ISTHA system have closed. The traveling public have no idea these services are available and located just off the tollway exits. As a result, many restaurants, motels and service stations have closed. More will close soon if something isn't done. My question, because the ISTHA allows advertising signs only at the ISTHA 7 oasis facilities, and no where else on their system, could the Illinois State Toll Highway . . . showing undo favoritism (duplicity) for it's oasis facilities possibly by in Federal Violation of Restraint of Trade?
- Category: Consumer
- Subcategory: Unfair Practices or Competition
- Date:
- State: Illinois
Answer:
The commercialization of rest stops is a controversial issue and the answer will be a matter of local legislation. Restraint of trade means any activity which tends to limit trade, sales and transportation in interstate commerce or has a substantial impact on interstate commerce. Antitrust law prohibits most of these types of practices. The main antitrust law is the Sherman Act. To prevent trusts from creating restraints on trade or commerce and reducing competition, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. The Sherman Act aims to eliminate restraints on trade and competition. States also have laws against restraints of trade that have strictly local impact.
There are also restraint of trade contracts, which are contracts that state, for example, that a person selling a business agrees not to open a similar business within 50 miles of the business being sold and for a period of ten years. These contracts are not necessarily illegal, although some states outlaw restraints on competitive business activity. It is generally against public policy to prevent someone from engaging in an occupation. The issue often arises in non-compete agreements between an employer and former employee, tying agreements requiring purchasers to buy additional products from suppliers, and other actions that restrict competition.
Interference with contract is a tort which is proven by the following:
1. A contract between the plaintiff and a third party at the time of the claimed interference.
2. Defendant knew of the contract at that time.
3. Defendant intentionally interfered with the contract.
4. Defendant improperly interfered with the contract.
5. Defendant’s conduct caused the breaching party to breach the contract.
6. Plaintiff was damaged as a result of defendant’s conduct.
See the following article for a discussion of investigation into awarding of contracts by the ISTHA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Tollway_oasis
For further discussion, please see:
http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2010/04/should-states-be-allowed-to-co.php
http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=24596
This content is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Legal statutes mentioned reflect the law at the time the content was written and may no longer be current. Always verify the latest version of the law before relying on it.
