FiltersDone

Question type

Essay

Multiple Choice

Short Answer

True False

Matching

Exam 42: Antitrust Law

Show Answer

Share

---

All types

Filters

Study FlashcardsPractice ExamLearn

Question 21

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Tacos Inc., Tamales Ltd., and Tostadas Corporation agree to exchange information and share advertising. This trade association is most likely

A) a deal that restrains trade but does not harm competition.
B) not within the scope of the Sherman Act.
C) a per se violation of antitrust law.
D) subject to analysis under the rule of reason .

E) C) and D)
F) All of the above

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 22

True/False

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Restraints of trade are laws that regulate economic competition.

A) True
B) False

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 23

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

A suit is filed against Drill-Bits Corporation, alleging that the firm committed the offense of monopolization. To determine whether Drill-Bits has monopoly power requires looking at

To deem an agreement a per se violation of antitrust law, a court must determine whether the agreement actually injures competition.

The federal agencies that enforce the antitrust laws include

The offense of monopolization does not require an intent to monopolize.

An attempt to monopolize is not likely to succeed unless the alleged offender possesses some degree of market power.

The Clayton Act is aimed at the same practices that are covered by the Sherman Act.

Competition is not necessarily diminished solely as a result of market concentration.

Meat Packing Corporation buys National Butcher Shops Inc. in an attempt to gain monopoly power. Remedies that a court might impose in a suit against Meat Packing for a violation of the antitrust laws include divesting itself of

Any agreement among competitors that artificially fixes prices is a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

U.S. antitrust laws do not apply outside U.S. territory.

Refer to Fact Pattern 42-1. A court would most likely rule that the agreement between Pharma and Renew is

Snobords Inc. refuses to sell its products to Timber WinterSports Stores, Inc., a retail snowboard dealership. This violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act if Snobords has monopoly power and

Under an exclusive-dealing contract , a group of competitors refuse to deal with a particular person or firm.

Spa Company makes and sells beauty supplies. By selling its products at prices substantially below the normal cost of production, Spa hopes to drive its competitors from the market. This is

The U.S. Department of Justice can prosecute violations of the Sherman Act.

Transformer Corporation and United Voltage Inc. are the principal suppliers of their product in their market. They agree that Transformer will sell exclusively to retailers and United will sell exclusively to wholesalers. This is most likely

A court deems an agreement between BioTech Inc. and ChemCorp to be a per se violation of the Sherman Act. With respect to this agreement, the court can

Agreements that are deemed illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Act include all of the following except