EBK THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS:
10th Edition
ISBN: 9781337516051
Author: Miller
Publisher: YUZU
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 27, Problem 2BS
Summary Introduction
Case summary: Company A and Company D are the competitors who sell similar appliances and target similar audience. They sell appliances mainly in the states of Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Kentucky. Both the companies decided that company A will no longer sell in the states of Indiana and Ohio and company D will no longer sell in the states of Illinois and Kentucky.
To find: The violation of the antitrust law by company A and company D.
Expert Solution & Answer
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Students have asked these similar questions
1. Basic Research LLC advertised its products on television networks owned by Rainbow Media Holdings Inc through an ad agency Icebox Advertising Inc. As Basic’s agent Icebox had express authority to buy ads from Rainbow on Basics behalf, but the authority was limited to buying ad with cash in advance. Despite this limit Rainbow sold ads to Basic through Icebox on credit. Basic paid Icebox for the ads, but Icebox did not pass all of the payments on to Rainbow. Icebox filed for bankruptcy. Can Rainbow recoup the unpaid amounts from Basic? Explain.2. Western Fire truck Inc contracted with Emergency One Inc (EO) to be its exclusive dealer in Wyoming and Colorado through Dec. 2003. James Costello, a Western Salesperson, was authorized to order EO vehicles for hi customers. Without informing Western, Costello emailed EO about Westerns diffuclties obtaining cash to fund its operations. He asked about the viability of Westerns contract and his possible employment with EO. On EO’s…
In 1923, DuPont was granted the exclusive right to make and sell cellophane in North America. In 1927, the company introduced a moisture-proof brand of cello- phane that was ideal for various wrapping needs. Although more expensive than most competing wrapping, it offered a desired combination of transparency, strength, and cost. Except for its permeability to gases, however, cellophane had no qualities that a number of competing materials did not possess as well. Cellophane sales increased dramatically, and by 1950, DuPont produced almost 75 percent of the cellophane sold in the United States. Nevertheless, sales of the material constituted less than 20 percent of the sales of “flexible packaging materials.” The United States brought an action, contending that by so dominating cellophane production, DuPont had monopolized a part of trade or commerce in violation of the Sherman Act. DuPont argued that it had not monopolized because it did not have the power to control the price of…
Cari enters a single-agency relationship with a
listing broker, who owes her full disclosure and
loyalty. The listing broker then finds Buyer
Bonnie who wants that same broker to represent
her in a transaction broker relationship,
providing Bonnie with certain duties such as
limited confidentiality.
Can the broker represent Cari in a single-agency
relationship
AND represent Bonnie as a transaction broker in
the same transaction?
No, because offering Bonnie limited
confidentiality would conflict with the full
disclosure already owed to Cari.
Yes, but only if the limited confidentiality owed to
Bonnie is needed to fulfill Cari's objective of
selling the property.
Yes, as long as the broker tries to be fair to br
+
parties.
Chapter 27 Solutions
EBK THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS:
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Before the purchase transaction, Shell had made know to Carbonic Co the purpose and intended use of electrodes. In short, Shell company put their trust and reliance on the skill and expertise of Carbonic Co. So, Shell ordered 60,000 kilograms of welding electrodes from Carbonic Co. for use in a project involving the fabrication of a cross-country gas transmission line. It turned out the electrodes are incapable of producing satisfactory weld in a vertical position. Shell sued Carbonic Co for violation under the Sale of Goods Act. Does Shell action prosper? Please state your reasons.arrow_forwardWhen OTES developed its first online application for university math courses, BD sued both OES and Gone. BD contends that Gone has breached his covenant not to compete, because he is engaging in a competitive business in online learning resources in university-level math and science and that he has proprietary information regarding the development of science and math tutorial programs. BD further contends that OTES is engaging in tortious interference with contract. BD is Gone and OTES deny the claims, and state that Gone has not violated his employment agreement, because they are not engaging in a competitive business with BD. The law in Georgia was recently amended to include the following provisions: A covenant not to compete must be reasonable in terms of time, geographical area, and prohibited activities. A time period longer than 2 years is presumed to be unenforceable. The courts are permitted to blue-pencil (or reform) covenants that are otherwise unenforceable.…arrow_forwardIn 1961, Ford Motor Company acquired Autolite, a manufacturer of spark plugs, in order to enter the profitable aftermarket for spark plugs sold as replacement parts. Ford and the other major automobile manufacturers had previously purchased original equipment spark plugs (those installed in new cars when they leave the factory) from independent producers such as Autolite and Champion, either at or below the producer’s cost. The independents were willing to sell original equipment plugs so cheaply because aftermarket mechanics often replace original equipment plugs with the same brand of spark plug. GM had already moved into the spark plug market by developing its own division. Ford decided to do so by means of a vertical merger under which it acquired Autolite. Prior to the Autolite acquisition, Ford bought 10 percent of the total spark plug output. The merger left Champion as the only major independent spark plug producer. Champion’s market share thereafter declined because Chrysler…arrow_forward
- Denny’s Marina Inc. filed an antitrust action, described more fully below, against various defendants: the Renfro Defendants (Renfro Productions Inc.; Indianapolis Boat, Sport, and Travel Show Inc.; and individuals connected with those firms), CIMDA (the Central Indiana Marine Dealers Association), and the Dealer Defendants (various boat dealers that competed with Denny’s in the sale of fishing boats, motors, trailers, and marine accessories in the central Indiana market). The Renfro Defendants operated two boat shows each year, one in the spring and one in the fall, at the Indiana State Fairgrounds. At the time of the litigation, the spring show had occurred annually for more than 30 years and was one of the top three boat shows in the United States. It attracted between 160,000 and 190,000 consumers each year. The fall show was a smaller operation that had occurred each year since 1987. Numerous boat dealers participated in the two shows. Denny’s participated in the fall show in…arrow_forwardKenneth Thomas brought suit against his former employer, Kidder, Peabody & Company, and two of its employees, Barclay Perry and James Johnston, in a dispute over commissions on sales of securities. When he applied to work at Kidder, Peabody & Company, Thomas had filled out a form, which contained an arbitration agreement clause. Thomas had also registered with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Rule 347 of the NYSE provides that any controversy between a registered representative and a member company shall be settled by arbitration. Kidder, Peabody & Company is a member of the NYSE. Thomas refused to arbitrate, relying on Section 229 of the California Labor Code, which provides that actions for the collection of wages may be maintained “without regard to the existence of any private agreement to arbitrate.” Perry and Johnston filed a petition in a California State court to compel arbitration under Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Should the petition of Perry and…arrow_forwardB. Hawkeye Bank & Trust and affiliated banks agreed to refer bank customers to Financial Marketing Services, Inc. (FMS) for the purchase of life insurance. Hawkeye and FMS shared the commissions. Hawkeye employees and some independent agents licensed through FMS made the actual sales; however, all insurance business was FMS’ property. Because of concern about the confidentiality of bank customer information, Hawkeye decided to terminate its contract with FMS and sell insurance directly to its customers. The independent agents claimed Hawkeye terminating the contract with FMS constituted intentional interference with the agents’ contracts and prospective relations. Was it? Explain your position.arrow_forward
- Denver Corporation of Colorado provides welding services for large projects, customized furniture. It does not advertise or otherwise solicit business in Oregon. Medford Industries, Inc., an Oregon high-end furniture store, contracted with Denver to ship metal furniture from Oregon to Colorado. After thirty-two transactions, Medford filed a suit in an Oregon state court against Denver, alleging breach of contract. Can the Oregon court exercise jurisdiction? a. No, because Denver Corporation did not advertise or solicit business in Oregon and therefore did not deliver their services into the stream of commerce there. b. Yes, because the furniture came from Denver. c. Yes, because 32 transactions satisfy the minimum-contacts test for determining whether a state can exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state business. d. No, because Medford Industries contacted Denver Corporation. Denver did not contact Medford and therefore Denver did not…arrow_forwardToby's Doggie Hotel enters into a contract with ABC Marketing to purchase 100 orange frisbees for $300.00. Toby's Doggie Hotel repudiates the contract and ABC later resells the frisbees to someone else for $250.00. a. ABC is not entitled to recover from Toby's Doggie Hotel b. ABC is entitled to recover $50.00 from Toby's Doggie Hotel c. ABC is entitled to recover $250.00 from Toby's Doggie Hotel d. ABC is entitled to recover $300.00 from Toby's Doggie Hotelarrow_forwardVuitton, a French corporation, manufactures high-quality handbags, luggage, and accessories. Crown Handbags,. a New York corporation, manufactures and distributes ladies’ handbags. Vuitton handbags are sold exclusively in expensive department stores, and distribution is strictly controlled to maintain a certain retail selling price. The Vuitton bags bear a registered trademark and a distinctive design. Crown’s handbags appear identical to the Vuitton bags but are of inferior quality. May Vuitton recover from Crown for manufacturing counterfeit handbags and selling them at a discount? Explain.arrow_forward
- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) files suit against Yange Corp. under § 2 of the Sherman Act. To be successful, the FTC must prove that Yange Corp. possesses monopoly power in the relevant market and that the monopoly power was obtained by illegal means. The FTC has no direct evidence that Yange is using its power to control prices and restrict output. The FTC, therefore, must show that Yange Corp. has monopoly power indirectly, by showing that Yange Corp. has a dominant share of the relevant market and that there are significant barriers for new competitors entering that market. The FTC can calculate the market share that Yange Corp. has by: showing the total sales that Yange Corp. has ever had. × showing the net revenue that Yange Corp. had during their year of highest profits. looking at the company's sales compared against the total sales of the industry within a specific period. taking the total sales of the industry over one year, and comparing against industry sales over prior…arrow_forwardBrian Cleary and Rita Burke filed a suit against cigarette maker Philip Morris USA, Inc., seeking class-action status for a claim of deceptive advertising. Cleary and Burke claimed that “light” cigarettes, such as Marlboro Lights, were advertised as safer than regular cigarettes, even though the health effects are the same. They contended that the tobacco companies concealed the true nature of light cigarettes. Philip Morris correctly claimed that it was authorized by the government to advertise cigarettes, including light cigarettes. Assuming that is true, should the plaintiffs still be able to bring a deceptive advertising claim against the tobacco company? Why or why not?arrow_forwardQuincy forms a manufacturing corporation, the Fabri-Q Co. (Fabri-Q). He is the sole shareholder. He does not keep records of any dividends and very little records of the corporation's accounts. Ten months after the formation and incorporation of Fabri-Q, one of Fabri-Q's products injures a user and Fabri-Q is sued. Which of the following ordinarily is a reason for a court to hold Quincy personally liable? O If Quincy is not held liable, creditors would not be fully compensated. O Fabri-Q's headquarters was at the same address as another business that Quincy. O The corporation did not elect any directors. O Quincy decides to use some of the profits from Fabri-Q - paid to him as a dividend to pay his personal debts. O Quincy served as the CEO and CTO (Chief Technology Officer) of Fabri-Q.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student Edition
Business
ISBN:9781337407137
Author:Kelly
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...
Business
ISBN:9781337386494
Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana Loewy
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)
Business
ISBN:9780134474021
Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. Steinbart
Publisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...
Business
ISBN:9781259929441
Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. Hult
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education