HI5015 Legal Aspects of Business Proof Reading Services

HI5015 Legal Aspects of Business Oz Assignments

HI5015 Legal Aspects of Business Proof Reading Services


This report is the brief study about the Metro Industries INC v Sammi Corporation case. The reason on which the dispute had taken place will be discussed. The facts of the case will be analysed in this report. The issues that have risen in this case will be discussed and whether they are relevant to the violation as per se § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The arguments of both the parties will be discussed in this report and will be analysed whose argument is more relevant in relation to the law. The Court decision, in this case, has its own importance in the international law. The decision of the tribunal will be described in this report. The importance of International law in the case will be discussed and how the development of the international law has took place from this case.

Background of the Dispute

The Sammi Corporation had been sued by the Metro Industries. Sammi Corporation had been registered with the Korean design registration system that had given the right to export the particular holoware for the producers of Korean hollowware. This right extends to three years and the violation had been given under § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Sammi Corporation had used a registration system in 1983 for preventing the Metro and the other importers of Kitchenware from acquiring Korean made stainless steel steamers from any of his competitors in the Korea that was alleged by Metro Industries. The Metro Industries had appealed this in the district Court grant Sammi Corporation motion for summary judgement on the Metro Sherman’s Act that was based on the record of the district court record from Vollrath co. v Sammi Corp. 9 F.3d 1455 (9th Cir.1993). It is the case in which the other kitchenware importer had sued the Sammi Corporation for the breach of §1 of the Sherman Act (Reuters, 2018).

Brief Facts

Metro Industries are the wholesaler of kitchenware items. It has started his business in 1977 and started trading with Sammi Corporation in 1978. Sammi Corporation is a South Korean company is engaged in the business of export. Sammi Corporation was the member of the Association called Korea Holloware (Sammi Corporation, 2018). In this case, the Metro Industries is the plaintiff that sued Sammi Corporation that the Sammi Corporation had took an advantage of the Korean design registration system. It is alleged that it had obtained an exclusive right for the 3 years for exporting a particular hollowware design to eliminate its competitors to export. In the year 1981, the metro had raised the idea of a line of stainless steel steamers with Sammi, the models had been provided by the Metro to Sammi Corporation. It had been said to Sammi Corporation to develop the samples and shall start supplying the steamers. Steamer designer had been registered by the Sammi Corporation and it had begun start supplying to Metro with steamers. Some disturbance had been notice by Metro in delivering of steamers from Sammi Corruption in the year 1983. Metro argued that its effort to order from other companies had been blocked by the Sammi Corporation. However, in the year 1983 Metro had been able to order from Sambo was a Korean company and then he faced no disruptions in steamer shipments. Therefore, Metro Industries had filed a complaint against the Sammi Corporation and has two subsidiaries in the United States District Court. The district Court had commenced a bench trial in the year 1986. The basic motive of the Metro to file a case against the subsidiaries that they were also involved predatory pricing and with the intention of monopolizing of the stainless steel steamer and mixing the bowl markets(Reuters, 2018).

Legal Issues

The legal issues that had been a rise in this case are:-

Does the conduct be a per se violation of the § 1?

It can be said that whether the activity violates the § 1 of the Sherman Act can only be determined through the case by case application but however by the facts it can be said that whether the restriction policies should be prohibited as it creates an unreasonable restriction on the competition (Kluwer, 2018).

2 Does the foreign conduct meet the rules of the Jurisdictions of reason test?

If it has been examined the foreign conduct in determining whether it is an antitrust violation, then the jurisdiction is not a foregone conclusion. If the Court found the foreign conduct involved then it may be tried whether the conduct has the substantive antitrust significance only after been decided that whether the Sherman’s Act has the jurisdiction over it (Edelman, 2015).

3. Does the Conduct create the significant anticompetitive effect in the US?

It is only being established when any antitrust injury had been made or from the conduct there been an injury to the competition. It is necessary to have a claimant because the metro has only relied on them as per se argument as it only points to a little evidence of the impact of the Korean Registrations System on competition in the United States (Hills, 2018).

Parties Arguments

The two of the parties had put their arguments in front of the Tribunal. Metro Industries had argued in the Court that the Sammi corporation had violated the § 1 of the Sherman Act. Sammi Corporation had misused the Korean Registration System to restrict the competition that is as per se violation of the § 1 of the Sherman Act. It Korean Registrations System had also been argued by the Metro Industries that it had created an anticompetitive effect in the U.S. Metro argued that its effort to order from other companies had been blocked by the Sammi Corporation (Trifu, Juravle and Terec-Vlad, 2017). Thus, the Sammi Corporation had given the argument in his defence that the conduct does not apply as per se § 1 does not applies to the Sammi Corporation. Sammi Corporation is a Korean Company and therefore the law of U.S does not applicable to the company. The Sammi Corporation law argued that the Korean design registration system was not illegal. The Sammi Corporation argued that there was no antitrust injury. The Sammi Corporation has not made any injury to the competition. Sammi Corporation has more powerful arguments than the Metro Industries. Metro Industries main argument was moving around the § 1 of the Sherman’s Act. The Metro Industries does not have any evidence that the Sammi Corporation has affected or made any injury to the competition. Thus, the Sammi Corporation had been more able to prove his points than the Metro Industries (Klabbers, Peters and Ulfstein, 2009).

Tribunal’s Decision

The Court had decided in the case after listening of both parties arguments and decided the case. The Court had in his verdict said that the Sammi Corporation had not violated per se violation of §1 as the conduct of the Sammi had been authorised by the Korean Quasi-governmental group (Sweeney, 2015). The Court had also stated that there had been no evidence been found by the Court that there was a negative effect on the competition. There was also no evidence that the trade was restrained. The per se §1of the Sherman Act is not applied in this case in any manner. The Court in his judgement said that the Metro Industries had alleged that it is not meeting the jurisdictional rule of the reason test. While all comity it is concluded that the interests of Korea is not been harmed and the US Court can assume its jurisdiction. There was no evidence of the actual injury had been produced by the Metro, so from this, the US Court can assume the jurisdiction. The Court had stated the metro has not given any evidence that there was an actual injury had occurred in the US. The Metro was only being relied on as pre se §1 violation. This does not prove that the actual injury had taken place. Thus, the Court had affirmed the order in his judgement. The laws on which the Court had provided his judgement as first was in accordance with the laws of the Sherman Act. A case had been determined in the situation where there had been a violation of the §1 of the Sherman Act had been identified as stated in the Business Elecs Corp v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 723, 108 S.Ct. 1515, 1519, 99 L.Ed2d 808 (1988) (Casemine, 2018).

Importance of Case in International Law

In the International Law, this case has its own importance because there are two laws that come in the conflict in this case. It is important for the Court to decide whether the application of the Sherman Act applies in this case (Amato, 2017). There it gives an importance to the international law in this case. The issue that is raised in this case can only be solved by the international law. When there had been a trading between the two countries companies then there been important that which countries laws will be applicable to these types of trading. There the role of International law comes that helps the companies to trade according to the laws of the international law so that these issues cannot be a rise in future. Sammi Corporation had been registered with accordance with the Korean Registrations System that gives to the company right to sell holloware that was alleged by the Korean Company that there had been the misuse of these policies and it creates a hollow in the competition. In this case, the issue was rise whether there had been whether the law had created the anticompetitive effect. Thus, the anticompetitive effect will be proved when there is an injury in the competition, it is dealing with the antitrust the rule of the international law. In the end, it can be concluded that the case of Metro Industries INC v Sammi Corporationhas created a certain importance of the International Law in the cases of dispute between the two countries companies. These cases can only be resolved by the International Law and therefore in this emerging trade in the world, the importance of International Law has increased (Crawford, 2006).


In the conclusion, it can say from the decision of the Court that there had been no violation of the§ 1 of the Sherman Act. The court has rejected the metro arguments that it created an anticompetitive effect in the U.S. it had been concluded that without an effect on anything like in the commerce of U.S it cannot be said the laws had been violated. Hence, the Metro Industries did not find any evidence from they could prove the sustainability of the legal issues. Therefore, the Court has rejected the plea of the Metro Industries. In the case the arguments of the Sammi Corporation has more weight than the arguments of the Metro Industries. Thus, it has also proved from the case that the international law has its own in deciding the case in the disputes between the two countries companies.


1. Business Elecs Corp v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 723, 108 S.Ct. 1515, 1519, 99 L.Ed2d 808 (1988).
Casemine (2018). Prelimanry Order. [Online] Available from: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/
5914bb5aadd7b049347960e3#p_62 [Accessed 26th September 2018]
Crawford, J. (2006) The creation of states in international law. USA: Oxford University Press.
Amato, A. (2017) Is International Law Really “Law”??. In The Nature of International Law (pp. 137-158). New York: Routledge.
Edelman, M. (2015) How Antitrust Law Could Reform College Football: Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Hope for Tangible Change. Rutgers UL Rev., 68, p.809.
Hills, B.S. (2018) When Cheating Is Good and Cooperation Is Bad: Conspiracies and the Continuing Violations Doctrine Under the Sherman Act. Missouri Law Review83(1), p.11.
Klabbers, J., Peters, A. and Ulfstein, G. (2009) The constitutionalization of international law. USA: Oxford University Press.
Kluwer, W. (2018) Corporate Accounting Legal Compliance Handbook. United States of America: Library of Congress Metro Industries INC v Sammi CorporationNo. 94-56180.
Reuters, T. (2018) Cases and Codes.[Online] Available from:https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1339772.html [Accessed 26th September 2018]
Reuters, T. (2018) METRO INDUSTRIES INC v. SAMMI CORPORATION[Online] Available from: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1339772.html