
    BULOVA WATCH COMPANY, INC., a corporation v. BRAND DISTRIBUTORS OF NORTH WILKESBORO, INC., a corporation, and ROBERT YALE BULOVA WATCH COMPANY, INC., a corporation v. MOTOR MARKET, INC., a corporation d/b/a BOB’S JEWELRY & LOAN, and ROBERT YALE
    No. 7423SC142
    (Filed 6 February 1974)
    Monopolies § 1— Fair Trade Act — validity and constitutionality
    The Fair Trade Act is valid and constitutional, and the trial court properly entered judgment enjoining defendants from selling plaintiff’s product at prices less than the minimum prices established by plaintiff’s fair trade agreements and from otherwise violating plaintiff’s system under the Fair Trade Act.
    Appeal by defendants from Rousseau, Judge, 10 September 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Wilkes County.
    Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from violating plaintiff’s fair trade agreements in North Carolina. Defendants have not signed any agreement with plaintiff and have not purchased merchandise from plaintiff. The relevant facts were stipulated and are sufficient to establish a violation of the plaintiff’s fair trade agreements.
    Defendants appealed from a judgment enjoining them from selling plaintiff’s product at prices less than minimum prices established by plaintiff’s fair trade agreements and from otherwise violating plaintiff’s system under the Fair Trade Act.
    
      Grier, Parker, Poe, Thompson, Bernstein, Gage and Preston by Mark R. Bernstein and W. Samuel Woodard for plaintiff wppellee.
    
    
      W. G. Mitchell and McElwee & Hall by John E. Hall, attorneys for defendant appellants.
    
   VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendants’ appeal has merit only if G.S. Chapter 66, Art. 10, the “Fair Trade Act,” is invalid as to them. The case directly involves a substantial question arising under the constitution. See G.S. 7A-30.

More than thirty-four years ago, our Supreme Court, Justice Barnhill dissenting, held that the “Fair Trade Act” was valid and constitutional. Lilly & Co. v. Saunders, 216 N.C. 163, 4 S.E. 2d 528. Until that opinion is modified or superseded by the Supreme Court, we are bound by it, although we consider much of defendants’ argument to be sound. The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.  