In the 1958 case Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Klor's, a small retail appliance store that accused Broadway-Hale and several major manufacturers and distributors of appliances of conspiracy to restrain trade in violation of Sherman Act. The defendants had allegedly agreed not to sell or supply their products to Klor’s at regular wholesale prices or on normal credit terms which they offered other retailers because they wanted to help Broadway-Hale dominate the market. Despite arguments from the defendants that no actual harm was done as there were many other suppliers available for Klor’s, the court held that such an agreement is inherently illegal under antitrust law regardless if it causes actual harm or not.

In the dissenting opinion for Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by making a decision on an issue of fact rather than law. He contended that it was not within the Court's jurisdiction to determine whether or not there was a conspiracy between Broadway-Hale and appliance manufacturers; this should have been left up to a jury trial in lower courts. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of antitrust laws as prohibiting any form of price discrimination or preferential treatment among businesses, arguing that such practices are common and necessary in competitive markets. In his view, only those agreements which unreasonably restrain trade should be considered illegal under these laws.