Exam 49: Antitrust: the Sherman Act

Which of the following has been recognized by the courts as a possible justification for tying agreements?

In United States v. Colgate & Co. (1919), the Supreme Court:

Some courts have recognized that tying agreements sometimes may be necessary to protect the reputation of the seller's product line.

The passage of the antitrust laws reflected a congressional assumption that competition was most likely to exist in an oligopolistic industrial structure.

Tying agreements may be challenged under both:

If a plaintiff proves that it has suffered a direct injury by another company in violation of the Sherman Act, it is entitled to recover:

Chicago School theorists argue that antitrust policy's primary thrust should feature:

The potential anticompetitive effect of a tying agreement is that the seller's competitors in the sale of the tied product may be foreclosed from competing with the seller for sales to customers that have entered into tying agreements with the seller.

Which of the following situations will justify the inference that a price-fixing conspiracy exists?

The proof of joint action required for violations of § 1 is applicable when a single firm is guilty of monopolizing or attempting to monopolize a part of trade or commerce.

To be liable for monopolization, a defendant must:

Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a corporation's employees can be guilty of a conspiracy provided they conspire with:

The activities of a corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary will not constitute the concerted action necessary for a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

United States-based firms that engage in international business activities must remember that they could be subject to antitrust complaints in other nations.

_____ analysis of behavior challenged under Section 1 of the Sherman Act is thought to provide reliable guidance to business.

BG Corp., a manufacturer of men's polyester leisure suits and other men's clothing items, held approximately a 70 percent share of the leisure suit market in the United States. (Although most males have publicly spurned this 1970s-era item, BG knows quite well that millions of men still swear by them--albeit quietly.) BG began refusing to sell wholesalers and retailers its leisure suits unless they also purchased BG's polyester capes. As a result, intermediate sellers that wished to buy BG leisure suits for resale effectively had to agree to purchase the capes as well. BG had begun selling the capes two years earlier, but the product was a commercial flop. Only one other company manufactured capes for wearing by men, and that company was about to cease doing so because, as it and BG had discovered, there was virtually no demand among men for capes. An appropriate plaintiff has now sued BG under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, on the theory that BG was a party to impermissible tying agreements. What treatment will the court give the agreements? Will BG be held liable? Why or why not?

One of the elements that must be demonstrated before a challenged tying agreement will be held to violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act is that:

Which of the following situations is most likely a case of Sherman Act Section 1 violation?

All the gas stations in Smalltown agree to charge the same price for gas. The owners of the various companies get together every Friday in a coffee shop to decide what the price will be next week. This is:

Which of the following is true about indirect purchasers?