Bring your bike to us for a hassle-free, fair market value trade and start shopping for your new bike today. Schwinn makes bikes that allow riders of all ages and abilities to experience the schwinn beach cruiser joy of riding. From “walk ‘n’ roll” kids bikes to the Le Tour Legacy, they offer a comprehensive line of bikes that suit the needs of riders across the United States and around the world.
Schwinn has developed a plan whereby a distributor may take orders and have the bicycle products shipped from Schwinn directly to the dealer with an invoice which is paid directly to Schwinn, who then sends the commission to the distributor. In a goodly number of cases, retail dealers send in orders direct to Schwinn for bicycles without waiting for a distributor’s salesman or contacting the distributor. Schwinn, however, sends the standard commission to the distributor in whose area the order comes from. The retail dealer pays the same F.O.B. price no matter what distributor is credited with the sale. He does not get a reduced price by making a direct order to Schwinn. There is some evidence of a de minimis nature, about franchised dealers who acted as a funnel for discount houses who were not franchised by Schwinn and lost their franchises.
A few participants began designing and building small numbers of mountain bikes with frames made out of modern butted chrome-molybdenum alloy steel. When the sport’s original inventors demonstrated their new frame design, Schwinn marketing personnel initially discounted the growing popularity of the mountain bike, concluding that it would become a short-lived fad.[39] The company briefly (1978–1979) produced a bicycle styled after the California mountain bikes, the Klunker 5. Using the standard electro-forged cantilever frame, and fitted with five-speed derailleur gears and knobby tires, the Klunker 5 was never heavily marketed, and was not even listed in the Schwinn product catalog.
The appellees did not appeal from the findings and order invalidating restraints on resale by distributors who purchase products from Schwinn. The Schwinn franchising system as shown by the evidence is reasonable, fair and good business procedure under all the circumstances existing in the bicycle industry. The defendants are not guilty of violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act in developing and carrying out such a franchising plan as the evidence shows has been developed and is in use by the defendants. However, when a distributor fills orders from warehouse stock that he has purchased, where he can set the price, and where there may be a differential in shipping costs or promptness or quality of service, he is acting as an owner and not as an agent or salesman for Schwinn. Where the ultimate risk and loss is borne by the distributor, as where he has purchased and taken title to the Schwinn products, he is truly an entrepreneur, or just a plain businessman. Counsel for the Government urged this court to follow the lead of the District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, United States v. White Motor Co., 194 F.
We agree, and upon remand, the decree should be revised to enjoin any limitation upon the freedom of distributors to dispose of the Schwinn products, which they have bought from Schwinn, where and to whomever they choose. The principle is, of course, equally applicable to sales to retailers, and the decree should similarly enjoin the making of any sales to retailers upon any condition, agreement or understanding limiting the retailer’s freedom as to where and to whom it will resell the products. But the Court inexplicably turns its back on the values of competition by independent merchants and the flexible wisdom of the rule of reason when dealing with distribution effected through sales to wholesalers.
The retailer under the Schwinn franchising plan buys to sell to the public and not to resell to another retailer who may not have adequate service or may not otherwise meet the approval of Schwinn. When a retailer enters into such activities he forfeits his rights under his franchise wherein he represents Schwinn in selling to the public. Being a pygmy, compared to its giant bicycle competitors, Sears, Roebuck Co., and Montgomery Ward Co.? Yes, if the plaintiff’s theory of the law applicable should be adopted by this court.
It so happened that Schwinn replaced Nicetown on December 1, 1955, less than two months after this occurrence. From a complete review of the evidence the court finds that Schwinn had good cause for such change and finds that the foregoing episode was not a controlling factor. This is a civil antitrust action, filed June 30, 1958, in the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. In March, 1959, on defendants’ motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), this cause was transferred to this District.
At that point, about 1946, World War II ended, and with the spread of urban life from the cities a tremendous demand for bicycles arose. Schwinn was not alone among the bicycle manufacturers who began to search for a more efficient solution of distribution. The U.S. agencies were relied upon and studies were made of the problem. schwinn ebike The experience of the automobile industry, which had preceded bicycles in this field and in other specialty products, had developed franchise and territory divisions to avoid ruinous competition and guarantee dealers a reasonable certainty of a source of supply and a sales area in which they could expect a market.