## Facts

- Standard Oil operated in Des Moines as a wholesale oil dealer.
- Crystal Oil Company operated as a local retail oil business, delivering to homes by tank wagons.
- Crystal cultivated customers using window “cards” supplied by Crystal, signaling Crystal’s wagons to stop and deliver oil.
- Crystal initially bought oil exclusively from Standard, then began purchasing from other wholesalers.
- After Crystal refused Standard’s demand for exclusivity, Standard undertook a retail campaign aimed at Crystal’s customer base.
- Standard’s agents followed Crystal’s wagons, served the same territory, and watched for Crystal’s customer window cards to make sales to those customers.
- Evidence indicated Standard’s agents sometimes suggested an affiliation with Crystal or traded on Crystal’s identity and goodwill.
- After Crystal’s business failed, Standard ceased the retail operation and returned to its wholesale business.
- Dunshee, as assignee of Crystal, sued alleging a concerted plan to destroy Crystal’s business by unfair means; the trial resulted in a plaintiff’s judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant’s temporary entry into a rival’s market segment, aimed at the rival’s established customers, can be actionable when undertaken as part of a concerted plan to drive the rival out of business.
2. Whether coordinated competitive acts that might be lawful in isolation become tortious when done with the predominant purpose of destroying another’s business by unfair or deceptive methods.
3. Whether the evidence permitted a finding of an unlawful conspiracy and justified submission to the fact-finder rather than a directed verdict for defendants.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence that defendants combined to destroy Crystal’s business through unfair means, not merely to compete for trade.
- The court concluded defendants’ conduct was not insulated as legitimate competition where the predominant object was to prevent the rival from continuing in business.
- The court found the record supported the verdict and rejected defendants’ claim that the evidence was legally insufficient.

## Legal Principles

- Legitimate competition is protected when pursued for a competitor’s own gain through ordinary and fair business methods, even if it harms a rival.
- A combination or concerted scheme may be tortious when its primary purpose is to destroy a rival’s business rather than to secure trade by fair efforts.
- In assessing an alleged conspiracy to injure a business, intent and purpose may be considered to determine whether challenged conduct exceeds permissible competition.
- Acts that could be lawful when viewed separately may become unlawful when executed as part of a coordinated plan employing deceptive or unfair tactics to eliminate a competitor.
- Appropriating a rival’s customer-identification methods and trading on the rival’s goodwill may support a finding of unfair interference and unlawful conspiracy.

## Conclusion

The court upheld liability where the evidence supported a coordinated plan to eliminate a retail rival by intercepting its customers through deceptive and unfair practices; such conduct fell outside the protection afforded to ordinary competitive activity.


Dunshee v. Standard Oil Co., 152 Iowa 618 (Iowa 1911)