Supreme Court to Lexmark: when you sell something, the buyer then owns it

You are correct. My understanding was that they ORIGINALLY tried to enforce this deal (cheaper cartridges if you promise not to refill them) as a contract, which was struck down already (though i admit, i am finding it hard to find citations for this right now, i could be wrong).

As a simple contract between two parties, no-resale seems perfectly legitimate (e.g. concert tickets), and i wonder why they didn’t just go with that…

1 Like