Legal Ch 27
Friction-Lube Corporation and Grease Inc. are the principal suppliers of their products in their market. They agree that Friction-Lube will sell exclusively to retailers and Grease will sell exclusively to wholesalers. Under antitrust law, this market division is most likely a. not a violation. b. a violation only if their competitors make similar deals. c. a per se violation. d. a violation only if their customers agree to honor the deal.
a per se violation
Gas, Inc., and Oil Corporation refine and sell gasoline. To limit the supply of gas on the market and thereby raise prices, Gas and Oil agree to buy "excess" supplies from dealers and "dispose" of it. This is a. subject to analysis under the rule of reason. b. a legal restraint of trade. c. a deal that neither restrains trade or harms competition. d. a per se violation of the Sherman Act.
a per se violation of the Sherman Act
Pharma Corporation makes and sells QualMed, the most prescribed name-brand blood pressure-lowering medication. Renew Drugs, Inc., has the potential to make a generic version of the same drug. Refer to Fact Pattern 27-1. Pharma pays Renew not to sell its product. This is a. a market division. b. a price-fixing agreement. c. an exclusive-dealing contract. d. a refusal to deal.
a price-fixing agreement
Domestic Oil Company joins with a foreign cartel to control the price of oil. The cartel has a substantial effect on U.S. commerce. A suit for violation of U.S. antitrust laws can be brought against a. all of the choices. b. Domestic Oil. c. Domestic Oil and the foreign cartel. d. the foreign carte
all of the choices
Consumers Retail Corporation may be engaging in conduct that violates the Sherman Act. To bring an action against the firm requires that its conduct have a significant impact on a. interstate commerce. b. intrastate commerce. c. international commerce. d. Internet commerce.
interstate commerce
Through smart business management, Harvest Bakery obtains monopoly power in its market. This is a. not an antitrust violation. b. a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. c. a per se violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. d. an illegal restraint on trade.
not an antitrust violation
Pharma Corporation makes and sells QualMed, the most prescribed name-brand blood pressure-lowering medication. Renew Drugs, Inc., has the potential to make a generic version of the same drug. Refer to Fact Pattern 27-1. A court would most likely rule that the agreement between Pharma and Renew is a. subject to analysis under the rule of reason. b. a legal restraint of trade. c. a per se violation of the Sherman Act. d. a deal that neither restrains trade or harms competiti
subject to analysis under the rule of reason
Pads & Pods Corporation requires all distributors of its products to sell the products at specified minimum prices. This resale price maintenance agreement is a. a legal restraint of trade. b. not subject to antitrust law. c. a per se violation of antitrust law. d. subject to evaluation under the rule of reason.
subject to evaluation under the rule of reason
A suit is filed against DrillBits Corporation, alleging that the firm committed the offense of monopolization. To determine whether DrillBits has monopoly power requires looking at a. DrillBits' size alone. b. the relevant market. c. DrillBits' production methods and marketing techniques. d. the price of a share of DrillBits' stock.
the relevant market
Ranchland Supplies Corporation believes that Stock & Equipment Corporation engages in anticompetitive behavior in an attempt to drive Ranchland, its chief competitor, out of the market. Antitrust laws can be enforced against Stock & Equipment by a. only a disinterested third party. b. Congress. c. none of the choices. d. Ranchland.
Ranchland
