of the relevant market. See, e.g., Tampa Elec., 365 U.S. at 327-30, 81 S.Ct. 623. b. Project Avalanche Agreements Lacked Exclusivity and Anticompetitiveness To be considered “exclusive” under antitrust laws, an agreement must either expressly preclude a party from doing business with the defendant’s competitors, or highly incentivize or have the practical effect of exclusivity. See LePage’s, 324 F.3d at 157-58 (in analyzing a § 2 claim, noting that “unilaterally imposed quantity discounts can foreclose the opportunities of rivals when a dealer can obtain its best discount only by dealing exclusively with the dominant firm” (quoting 3A Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 768b2, at 148)); Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 207 F.3d 1039, 1058-59 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Masimo Corp., 2006 WL 1236666, at *3, *5-6
holding that buyers of real property who were in constructive possession of the property had made a down payment and had signed a contract to purchase at the time of the loss had an insurable interest in the property despite a court determination two years after the loss that the agreement to purchase was not binding holding that discount purchase agreements that did not require buyers to commit to buying a sellers products for any specified time period were not exclusive because buyers were free to walk away from the discounts at any time holding that even though the contract limited the buyers remedies to specific performance or a refund of earnest money they were entitled to damages in the amount of the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the property where the seller thwarted the buyers right to specific performance by selling the property to another at a higher price holding that where no evidence was designated to show that a car buyer knew that a sale violated the rights of the dealership that owned the car the buyers were buyers in the ordinary course of business for purposes of indcode  26112019 holding that by his actions the seller waived the time is of the essence provision in leasewithpurchase agreement by not demanding a timely closing indeed the seller negotiated with the buyers about the condition of property for over a year accepted the buyers monthly payments for nearly seven years and never reinstated the time is of the essence provision