Asked by Nabin Adhikari on Jun 07, 2024
Verified
Which of the following situations will justify the inference that a price-fixing conspiracy exists?
A) The defendant's parallel pricing behavior stemmed from an implied agreement.
B) Independent business decisions by the defendant led to price parallelism.
C) The defendant was unwilling to relinquish market share by engaging in price competition.
D) The evidence only indicates pure conscious price parallelism by the defendant.
Price-fixing Conspiracy
An illegal agreement between competing businesses to fix prices at a certain level, restricting competition and violating antitrust laws.
Parallel Pricing
A situation where competitors in the market set their prices at a similar level without explicit agreement, often as an anti-competitive practice.
- Assess the legal acceptability of corporate maneuvers like price-fixing, delineating markets, and vertical controls in accordance with antitrust provisions.
Verified Answer
JH
Jametrius HeathJun 11, 2024
Final Answer :
A
Explanation :
Courts have consistently held that proof of pure conscious parallelism,standing alone,is not enough to establish a Sherman Act Section 1 violation.Other evidence must be presented to show that the defendants' actions stemmed from an agreement,express or implied,rather than from independent business decisions.
Learning Objectives
- Assess the legal acceptability of corporate maneuvers like price-fixing, delineating markets, and vertical controls in accordance with antitrust provisions.
Related questions
All of the Gas Stations in Smalltown Agree to Charge ...
As Per the Colgate Doctrine,a Manufacturer Cannot Unilaterally Refuse to ...
It Is Per Se Illegal for Competitors to Make an ...
________ Agreements Reduce a Manufacturer's Sales Costs and Provide Dealers with ...
Hardware Retailers Deuce Hardware Co ...