NO Plaguarism

wr tilillT FegR lthe nelalotoU Envlronment BEFORE THE TEST Go to www.cengagebrain,com, enter the ISBN number "978111I530617 ," and click on "Find" ro locate rhis textbook's Web site. Then, click on "Access Now" under "Study Tools," and select "Chapter 23" at the top. There you will find an "Interactive Qui.z" that you can take to assess your mastery of the concepts in this chapter, as weil as "Flashcards" and a "Glossary" of important terms. € For Review : What is a monopoly? What is market por'r,er? Hor.v do these concepts relate to each other? .. What t1.pe ol activity is prohibited b;' Sectron 1 of the Sherman Act? \ihar r,vpe ol acriviry is prohibited b1. Sectlon 2 of the Sherman Act? \''haL are the lour major provisions of the Clayton Act, and rvhat types ol actiritres do these provisions prohibit? \Vhat agencies of the federal government enforce the fecleral antitrusr lar,r.sl \,'hat are four activities thal are exempt liom Lhe antitrust la\,s? S Or.rtions and Case Problems Sherman Act. An agleement that rs ltLaranrlr' and sul;sran tialll ar-iticon-rpetrtn e is deemed a per sc r-rolation r..lI SectLor-r I ol the Shern-ran Act. Under r,vhat rule rs an agreement ana- 11'zed if it appears to be anticompetitrr-e but rs nor a pcr sc vrolation? In making this ana'lr.sis. ri-hat lactors wll1 a court /flconsider?

titrust [aws. Allitron, Inc., and Donovan, Lrd., are inter- \Jtate competrtors selllng simllar appliances, principally in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Kenruckl: and Ohio. Allltron and Donor-an agree that Allitron will no longer sell in Indlana and Ohio and that Donovan u.rll no longer sell in lllinois and Kentuckv Hai'e Allitron ancl Donovan rioLrtecl an .nt tt'Llst -- lau'l Il '.,. uhi.h lrri I Elrl.rirr '-+----^-_)+Group Boycott. JorgesT.ppliance Corp. lr'as ir nerv rcrail scller ol appliances in Sr-rnrise Citlt Because ol rts tnno- vative srles techniques ancl fir-iancing. Jorges crrusccl the appliance clepartn'rent o[ No-Glolv Departmenr ,irorc. ,r large cl-rain store rvith a great deal ol bul,rng pou'er. ro Lr,rse a substantial amount of sales. No-Glou' told a nr-rmber ol :rppliance manulacturers from rvhom it made large-r-olume purchases that if they continued to sell to Jorges, No-GIou, t-ould stop bupng from them. The rnanufacrurers rmme- diatelr' stopped selling appliances to Jorges. Jorges fi1ed a suit against No-Glolv and the n-ianulacturers, claiming that their actrons constituted an antitmst r-iolation. No-Glou. and tl-re manufacturers w,ere abie ro pro\-e thatJorgeb r.vas a small reraiier u,ith a small market share. Thev claimed that because the relevant market *'as not substantlally al1ected, thel' u'ere not guiity of lesrrainr ol rracle. Discuss Iitll1, ,,/-- lr.tlr. 1 1lr. 1i 1-iilt ilttlllrucl ri,'l,rti,rrr ( )riceFixing. Icr.r.o. IrrL.. rrrrtl \h, ll rl L,, rrr \.,nrl 'lrlrrr\ \/ /," ihc r.lrtror-irl ancl internationrrl orl and gasohnc marlla- tlon osners ancl others. Betr,r,een 1998 ancl 201)2. Texaco and Sheli engaged in a loint venrure, Ecluilon Enterprises, to consolidate their operations in the western United States and a separate venture, Moliva Enterprises, for the same purpose in the eastern United States. This ended their com- petition in the domestic refining and marketing of gasoline. As part of the ventures, Texaco and Shell agreed to pooi their resources and share the risks and profits of their joint actlvities. The Federal Tiade Commission and several states approved the formation of these entities without restricting the pricing of their gasoline, which the ventures began to sel1 at a single price under the original Texaco and Shel1 brand names. Fouad Dagher and other station owners filed a suit in a federal district court against Texaco and Shel1, alleging that the defendants were engaged in illegal price fixine. Do the circumstances in this case fit the definition U o[ a price-fixing agreement? I{gbE lTexaco Inc. v. Dagher 547 U.S. I, 126 S.Cr. 1276,161L.Ed.2d I (2006)l 23-5. Resttaint of Trade. In 1999, residents of the ciry of Madison, Wisconsin, became concerned thal excessive consumption of liquor seemed to be increasing near the campus of the University of Wisconsln-Madison (UW), leading to more frequent use of detoxification faciliries and cails for police services in the campus area. Under pressure from lJl,{ whlch shared these concerns, the city initiated a new policy, imposing conditions ol atea Lay- erns to discourage price reduction "specials" believed to encourage high-volume and dangerous drinking. 7n2OO2, the city began to draft an ordinance to ban all drink spe- cials. Tavern owners responded by announcing that they had "voluntari1y" agreed to discontinue drink specials on Friday and Saturday nights after B p.u. The city put its ordinance on hold. UW student Nic Eichenseer and others filed a suit in a Wrsconsin state court against the Madison-Dane County Tavern League, Inc. (an associa- tion of 1ocal tavern owners), and others, alleging viola- tions of antitrust law. On what might the plaintiffs base