Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-2627 Teleport Inc. v. Ameritech Mobile Communications Inc.

By: dmc-admin//October 15, 2001//

00-2627 Teleport Inc. v. Ameritech Mobile Communications Inc.

By: dmc-admin//October 15, 2001//

Listen to this article

“As a matter of law, Tele-Port’s obvious concern about Car Phones+’s significant success in the market, combined with what Gary Rosenberg told his brother and Tele-Port’s own receipt of money apart from the cooperative advertising funds, gave Tele-Port sufficient information to trigger the required inquiry so that it would have, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, discovered more than one year before it commenced this action the availability of market development funds from Ameritech.”

And, even though plaintiff contends that defendant breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by implementing an alleged “discriminatory non-system wide market development fund payments to Car Phones+ and not to any other Ameritech dealers in the Wisconsin market,” we reject that contention because plaintiff has pointed to no clause in any of its Ameritech contracts that prevent Ameritech from giving market development funds to any of its dealers, or even to market those products and services through its own outlets.

Finally, there is no evidence that the market development funds were used as a disguised mechanism to cloak the reduction of prices to either Car Phones+ or its customers for Ameritech equipment or services.

“Indeed, [plaintiff’s president] testified during his deposition that he did not ‘know one way or another’ if there were ‘lower prices for equipment charged in the marketplace by any of [Tele-Port’s] competitors by reason of the payment of any market development funds to the competitor by Ameritech.’ Accordingly, Teleport has not submitted evidentiary material raising a genuine issue of fact as to whether the market development funds were ‘discounts’ so that Ameritech’s payment of market development funds violated Wis. Stat. sec. 133.05(1) as Tele-Port contends.”

Plaintiff’s other arguments concerning conspiracy, for example, are similarly without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Publication in the official reports is recommended.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Manian, J., Fine, J.


For Appellant: Edward T. Joyce, Chicago, Ill.; Rowena T. Parma, Chicago; Robert B. Corris, Milwaukee; Bruce A. Ranta, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Jon P. Christiansen, Milwaukee; Cynthia J. Franecki, Milwaukee


What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests