Case summary:A company, DSC sells its products to various companies including a company, SSP. A customer of SSP purchased the product of DSC from two competitors of SSP, due to which it lost its sales to that customer and others. The price of SSP was reported 10 to 15 percent higher than other companies. Company SSP sues company DSC for
To explain: The requirement to make claims under section 2 of the Clayton act by the company, SSP.
Case summary: A company, DSC sells its products to various companies including a company, SSP. A customer of SSP purchased the product of DSC from two competitors of SSP, due to which it lost its sales to that customer and others. The price of SSP was reported 10 to 15 percent higher than other companies. Company SSP sues company DSC for price discrimination.
To find:The facts which can prove the claim of company SSP.
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionChapter 27 Solutions
The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases (MindTap Course List)
- In 1992 the state of California charged Sears Auto Centers with overcharging customers for unneeded or unperformed repairs. Sears agreed to a settlement that could cost as much as $20 million. Sears had compensated its salespeople with commissions based on total sales. Following the settlement, Sears dropped the commissions and went to a straight salary. Sears recently indicated that it is planning to reinstate commissions for salespeople in their Auto Centers. It even plans on paying commissions for selling customers brake jobs and wheel alignments. These two products were the core of the 1992 scandal. Sears says that it has taken steps to prevent a recurrence of past problems. In particular, the decision right to recommend repairs is granted to mechanics who are paid a straight salary. Sales consultants are paid commissions for selling repair services but are not authorized to recommend repairs. Under the old system that caused problems, these individuals diagnosed repair…arrow_forwardA computer manufacturer terminating an electronic store retailer's contract to sell the manufacturer's computers because the electronic store sold the manufacturer's computers at a price which the manufacturer deemed too low is: a per se violation of the Sherman Act. resale price maintenance subject to a rule of reason review. price fixing. none of the above.arrow_forwardYou are President and CEO of Apex Business Systems, Inc. (Apex). Apex, through its purchasing agent, bought a new microwave from Inki Appliances Company (Inki) who sells microwaves on a daily basis. There was no written or oral warranty given when the sale was made. The microwave stopped working one week after it was placed it in the company kitchen. Assume also that nobody misused the microwave or in any way caused it to quit working. The purchasing agent returned the microwave three days after it quit working. The owner of Inki refused to repair or replace the microwave or offer a refund. Prepare a demand letter to be sent to Inki.arrow_forward
- The National Society of Professional Engineers (Society) had an ethics rule that prohibited member engineers from disclosing or discussing price and fee information with customers until after the customer had hired a particular engineer. This rule against competitive bidding was designed to maintain high standards in the field of engineering. The Society felt that competitive pressure to offer engineering services at the lowest possible price would encourage engineers to design and specify inefficient, unsafe, and unnecessarily expensive structures and construction methods. According to the Society, awarding engineering contracts to the lowest bidder, regardless of quality, would be dangerous to the public health, safety, and welfare. The Society emphasizes that the rule is not an agreement to fix prices. Rather, it claims the rule was drafted by experienced, highly trained professional engineers to prevent public harm and is therefore reasonable. Does the rule unreasonably restrain…arrow_forwardA&P Grocery Stores decided to sell its own brand of canned milk (referred to as private label milk). A&P asked its longtime supplier, Borden, to submit an offer to produce the private label milk. Bowman Dairy also submitted a bid, which was lower than Borden’s. A&P’s Chicago buyer then contacted Borden and said, “I have a bid in my pocket. You people are so far out of line it is not even funny. You are not even in the ballpark.” The Borden representative asked for more details but was told only that a $50,000 improvement in Borden’s bid “would not be a drop in the bucket.” A&P was one of Borden’s largest customers in the Chicago area. Furthermore, Borden had just invested more than $5 million in a new dairy facility in Illinois. The loss of the A&P account would result in underutilization of the plant. Borden lowered its bid by more than $400,000. The Federal Trade Commission charged Borden with price discrimination, but Borden maintained it was simply meeting the…arrow_forwardFor the scenario below, determine the legality of the company's actions. Lilcorp manufactures budget speaker systems for Bigcorp. It arranges an agreement wherein Bigcorp may not charge more than $300 for a speaker system. Strictly illegal Legal Illegal, depending on impactarrow_forward
- kindly write proper summary of this.arrow_forwardDue to uncertainty whether or not a new tax law is applicable to printing companies, ABC Printers submitted a legal query to the BIR on the issue. The BIR issued a ruling that printing companies are not covered by the new law. Relying on this ruling, ABC Printers did not pay the said tax. Subsequently however, the BIR reversed the ruling and issued a new one stating that the tax covers printing companies. Could the BIR assess ABC Printers for back taxes corresponding to the years before the new ruling? a) Yes, because taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception b) Yes, because taxes are the lifeblood of the government c) No, the BIR is not allowed to reverse its ruling d) No, reversal of a ruling shall not be given a retroactive application if it will be prejudicial to the taxpayer.arrow_forwardOn a beautiful Saturday in October, Francie decides to take the twenty-mile ride from her home in New Jersey into New York City to do some shopping. Francie finds that Brown’s Retail Sales, Inc., has a terrific sale on televisions and decides to surprise her husband with a new high-definition television. She purchases the set from Brown’s on her VISA card for $1,450. When the set is delivered, Francie discovers that it does not work. Brown’s refuses to repair or replace it or to credit Francie’s account. Francie therefore refuses to pay VISA for the television. VISA brings a suit against Francie. Will VISA prevail? Why or why not?arrow_forward
- Lizard Lick Corporation requires all distributors of its lizard salt lick products to sell the products at specified minimum prices. This resale price maintenance agreement is not subject to antitrust law as it deals with products for animal life and the antitrust laws were implemented to protect people only. a violation of the Clayton Act. a per se violation of the Sherman Act. subject to evaluation under the rule of reason. just plain wrong and illegal on for numerous reasons.arrow_forwardthe major federal legislation in Canada that defines illegal practices, including price fixing, bid rigging, price discrimination, predatory pricing, double ticketing, resale price maintenance, bait and switch selling, and pyramid selling occurs when false or deceptive comparisons or distorted claims are made concerning a competitor's product, services, or property comprise principle and standards that guide behaviour in the world of business may be incurred when an unfair and untrue statement is made about a competitor in writing the statement becomes actionable when it is communicated to a third party and can be interpreted as damaging the company the foundation for partnering-style relationship, product, customer, and presentation strategies an attempt to influence the person receiving the "gift"prohibits joining a competing firm for a year after they leave mutual exchange of benefits, as when a firm buys products from its customer the buyer wants to do business with an institution…arrow_forwardTrue or False 1. Natural rights are the rights that nature teaches each man that he has according to the law of nature. 2. Physical privacy refers to privacy with respect to a person’s inner life. 3. Manipulation of supply is related to price setting; when oligopolistic industries recognize one firm as the firm that sets the price, that firm is the price leader.arrow_forward
- BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage LearningEssentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage LearningAccounting 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