and (2) an injury to the plaintiff which flows from that which makes defendant’s acts unlawful.” Gulfstream III Assocs. Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 995 F.2d 425, 429 (3d Cir.1993) (citing Int’l Raw Materials, Ltd. v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 978 F.2d 1318, 1327-28 (3d Cir.1992)). The District Court correctly recognized that exclusive supply contracts or exclusive dealing agreements have been frequently upheld when challenged on antitrust grounds. See, e.g., E. Food Servs., Inc. v. Pontifical Catholic Univ. Servs. Ass’n, Inc., 357 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.2004) (stating that exclusive dealing contracts are not disfavored by antitrust laws and ordinarily pose threat to competition only in very discrete circumstances); Barr Labs., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 978 F.2d 98, 111 (3d Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>). “Rather, it is widely recognized that in many
holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous recognizing section 365 as the exclusive remedy in the context of executory contracts holding implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing found in some commercial contracts does not extend to atwill employment contracts recognizing that existence of legitimate business justifications for the exclusive dealing contracts also supports the legality of the global contracts holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims