context: In the past, we have expressed doubt as to whether an agreement involving less than all of a customer's purchases even falls within the ambit of Section 3.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: "An agreement affecting less than all purchases does not amount to true exclusive dealing."
citation_a.sentence: See Barr Labs., 978 F.2d at 110 n. 24 (“An agreement affecting less than all purchases does not amount to true exclusive dealing.”) (citation omitted); see also W. Parcel Express v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 190 F.3d 974, 976 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that because volume discount contracts did “not preclude consumers from using other delivery services, they [we]re not exclusive dealing contracts that preclude[d] competition”); Magnus Petroleum Co. v. Skelly Oil Co., 599 F.2d 196, 200 (7th Cir.1979) (“Because the agreements contained no exclusive dealing clause and did not require plaintiffs to purchase any amounts of gasoline that even approached their requirements, they did not violate Section 3 of the Clayton Act.”) (citations omitted).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 190 F.3d 974, 976
citation_b.parenthetical: concluding that because volume discount contracts did "not preclude consumers from using other delivery services, they [we]re not exclusive dealing contracts that preclude[d] competition"
citation_b.sentence: See Barr Labs., 978 F.2d at 110 n. 24 (“An agreement affecting less than all purchases does not amount to true exclusive dealing.”) (citation omitted); see also W. Parcel Express v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 190 F.3d 974, 976 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that because volume discount contracts did “not preclude consumers from using other delivery services, they [we]re not exclusive dealing contracts that preclude[d] competition”); Magnus Petroleum Co. v. Skelly Oil Co., 599 F.2d 196, 200 (7th Cir.1979) (“Because the agreements contained no exclusive dealing clause and did not require plaintiffs to purchase any amounts of gasoline that even approached their requirements, they did not violate Section 3 of the Clayton Act.”) (citations omitted).