FiltersDone

Question type

Essay

Multiple Choice

Short Answer

True False

Matching

Exam 27: Antitrust Law

Show Answer

Share

---

All types

Filters

Study FlashcardsPractice ExamLearn

Question 31

True/False

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Even if a firm possesses monopoly power and engaged in anticompetitive conduct, it cannot be inferred that the firm acted with the intent to monopolize.

A) True
B) False

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 32

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Power Inc. and QualGas Corporation refine and sell natural gas. To limit the supply on the market and thereby raise prices, Power and QualGas agree to buy "excess" supplies from dealers and "dispose" of it. This is

A) a deal that neither restrains trade or harms competition.
B) not within the scope of the Sherman Act.
C) a per se violation of the Sherman Act.
D) subject to analysis under the rule of reason.

E) A) and B)
F) None of the above

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 33

True/False

Review LaterAdd Note

A business, but not an individual person, can be deemed liable for monopolizing or attempting to monopolize trade or commerce in violation of the antitrust laws.

Battery Corporation's production, distribution, and marketing methods are unique. Its capital value and size are greater than its competitors. A suit is filed against the firm, alleging the offense of monopolization. To determine whether Battery has monopoly power requires looking at

The legality of a tying arrangement depends in part on the agreement's likely effect on competition in the relevant markets.

Section 2 of the Sherman Act essentially condemns the act of monopolizing, not the possession of monopoly power.

Four grocery stores account for 80 percent of the retail food sales in Metro City. Two of the stores want to merge. In determining whether the merger violates the Clayton Act, the most crucial factor is

Baby Goods Inc. buys Child Shops Inc. in an attempt to gain monopoly power. Remedies that a court might impose in a suit against Baby Goods for a violation of the antitrust laws include

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

Proving an antitrust violation requires showing a misuse of market power.

Under a contract, Oil Shale Corporation forbids Petro Inc., a wholesale buyer of Oil Shale's products, to purchase products from the seller's competitors. This is prohibited

Because market power arises from access to consumer data, collecting such information is an antitrust violation.

Two Chinese firms, Wong Ltd. and Xiang Ltd., engage in a conspiracy to control the distribution of certain goods in global markets. This may violate U.S. antitrust laws

Blu-ray producers cannot jointly lobby Congress to change the copyright laws without being held liable for attempting to restrain trade.

Under the Clayton Act, a business firm cannot merge with another unless the effect is to substantially lessen competition.

Cosmétique Inc. makes and sells cosmetics and related products. By selling its goods at prices substantially below the normal cost of production, the firm hopes to drive its competitors from the market. This is

To deem an agreement a per se violation of antitrust law, a court must determine whether the agreement actually constitutes a restraint on trade.

Fertile Acres Inc., Growers Farm Co-op, and Harvest Orchards agree to exchange information, conduct an advertising campaign, and set certain regulatory standards to govern their operations. This association is

Fixing prices, controlling production, and establishing exclusive geographic markets can reduce or eliminate economic competition.

It is in society's interest to condemn every acquisition of monopoly power as an antitrust violation even though a dominant market share may be the result of business acumen.