LET 6e-TB-Ch23

135
CHAPTER 23: ANTITRUST LAW AND PROMOTING COMPEITTION
Chapter 23
Antitrust Law and Promoting
Competition
TRUE/FALSE QUESTIONS
1.
A market in which there is more than one seller, even if only a

limited number, cannot be a monopoly.
ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
2.
PAGE:
742
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
PAGE:
742
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
Using market power to drive competitors out of business is illegal.

ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
5.
TYPE:
Monopoly power is an extreme amount of market power.

ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
4.
742
AICPA Legal
A firm that can ignore its competitors in setting a price for its
product has no market power.
ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
3.
PAGE:
PAGE:
742
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
Any agreement that enhances market power is an unreasonable

restraint of trade.
ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
PAGE:
742
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
136
6.
UNIT FOUR: THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
To violate antitrust law, an activity must involve two or more

persons.
ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
PAGE:
742
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
137
7.
An act must have a substantial impact on interstate commerce to

violate antitrust law.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
8.
744
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
PAGE:
744
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
PAGE:
745
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
PAGE:
745
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
A geographical market division between rival firms does not violate

antitrust laws.
ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
13.
PAGE:
A group boycott against a supplier for political reasons may not be

illegal.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
12.
A price-fixing agreement does not violate the Sherman Act if there is

a compelling economic reason for the agreement.
ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
11.
TYPE:
Under the rule of reason, a court will consider the purpose of an

agreement between competitors.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
10.
743
AICPA Legal
If an agreement is a per se violation of antitrust laws, there must be

further inquiry into its reasonableness.
ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
9.
PAGE:
PAGE:
745
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
Agreements among members of trade or professional organizations

are exempt from antitrust laws.
ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
PAGE:
746
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
138
14.
An agreement between firms operating at different levels in the

manufacturing and distribution process does not affect competition.
ANSWER: F
PAGE:
746
NAT: AACSB Reflective AICPA Critical Thinking
TYPE:
139
15.
In a concentrated industry, a single firm or a small number of firms

control a large percentage of market sales.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
16.
748
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
PAGE:
748
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
PAGE:
750
TYPE:
AICPA Legal
PAGE:
750
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
TYPE:
Predatory pricing is above-cost pricing.

ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
21.
PAGE:
Acquiring monopoly power through anticompetitive means violates

antitrust law.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
20.
A firm can have monopoly power without violating antitrust law.

ANSWER: T
N
NAT: AACSB Analytic
19.
TYPE:
Minimum resale price maintenance agreements are subject to

analysis under the rule of reason.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
18.
746
AICPA Legal
Maximum resale price maintenance agreements are subject to

analysis under the rule of reason.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
17.
PAGE:
PAGE:
750
AICPA Legal
A relevant product market consists of two elements: a product

market and its relevance.
ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
PAGE:
751
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
140
22.
A unilateral refusal to deal with a particular person or firm never violates antitrust law.
ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
23.
755
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
PAGE:
755
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
PAGE:
755
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
PAGE:
757
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
Conditioning the sale of one product on the purchase of another is a

tying arrangement.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
28.
PAGE:
Under an exclusive-dealing contract, a seller promises a buyer a

certain territory in which the buyer will have no direct competition.
ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
27.
Charging different prices to different buyers for identical goods is

price discrimination.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
26.
TYPE:
To violate antitrust law, an attempt to monopolize a market must be

intended to exclude competition and garner monopoly power.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
25.
754
AICPA Legal
Predatory bidding is analyzed under the same standards as

predatory pricing.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
24.
PAGE:
PAGE:
757
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
757
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
A tying arrangement is illegal per se.

ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
PAGE:
141
29.
Market share and market concentration are the only factors for
analyzing the anticompetitive effects of a merger.
ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
30.
760
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
PAGE:
761
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
PAGE:
762
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
PAGE:
762
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
Cooperative research by small-business firms is exempt from

antitrust law.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
35.
PAGE:
All professional sports are exempt from antitrust regulation.

ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
34.
U.S. antitrust law may protect foreign consumers and competitors

from violations by U.S. firms.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
33.
TYPE:
A private party who has been injured as a result of a violation of

antitrust law may recover treble damages.
ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
32.
758
AICPA Legal
A merger between firms that compete with each other in the same
market is a vertical merger.
ANSWER: F
NAT: AACSB Analytic
31.
PAGE:
PAGE:
762
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
U.S. firms may be subject to other nations antitrust laws.

ANSWER: T
NAT: AACSB Analytic
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
PAGE:
763
AICPA Legal
TYPE:
142
1.
Congress enacts a statute to outlaw a specific type of

anticompetitive business agreement. Like other laws that regulate
economic competition, this law is referred to as
a.
b.
c.
d.
a federal trade pact.

an antitrust law.
a per se violation.
a rule of reason.
ANSWER: B
PAGE:
741
NAT: AACSB Reflective AICPA Legal
TYPE:
143
2.
Helio Company can process hydrogen into an inexpensive fuel for

internal combustion engines. As an innovator in its market, Helio
currently has the power to affect the price of its product. This is
a.
b.
c.
d.
market power.
predatory pricing.
price-fixing.
ANSWER: A
PAGE:
742
3.
a common, legal, time-honored type of business arrangement.

an illegal restraint on trade.
an innovative, legally efficient approach to doing business.
an outdated, but legal business trust.
ANSWER: B
PAGE:
744
TYPE:
Seven Ivy League colleges and universities conspire to fix tuition

prices and financial aid packages. Under the Sherman Act, this is
a.
b.
c.
d.
a per se violation.
a violation only if their competitors also lower prices.
a violation only if they thereby acquire monopoly power.
not a violation.
ANSWER: A
PAGE:
745
5.
North Mining Company and South Excavation Companyrival firms

agree to abide by the decisions of East Coast Financial Corporation
as to their respective levels of production, markets, and prices,
effectively reducing competition and increasing profits. This is most
likely
a.
b.
c.
d.
4.
TYPE:
TYPE:
Indigo Packaging, Inc., a manufacturer of packaging papers and

boxes, refuses to sell to Jiffy Quik, Inc., a delivery service firm. Indigo
convinces Knotty Box Company, a competitor, to do the same. This
is
a.
a group boycott.
144
b.
c.
d.
an exclusive-dealing contract.
a price-fixing agreement.
a tying arrangement.
ANSWER: A
PAGE:
745
TYPE:
145
6.
Health Resources Corporation makes and sells Intake, the most

prescribed name-brand cholesterol-lowering medication. Jerichol
Company has the potential to make a generic version of the same
drug. Health Resources pays Jerichol not to sell its product. This is
a.
b.
c.
d.
a customer restriction.
a group boycott.
ANSWER: D
PAGE:
745
7.
Cardio, Inc., makes and sells Drawdown, the most prescribed namebrand heart medication. Emitate Corporation has the potential to
make a generic version of the same drug. Cardio pays Emitate not to
sell its product. This is most likely
a.
b.
c.
d.
a deal that neither restrains trade or harms competition.

a legal restraint of trade.
a per se violation of the Sherman Act.
subject to analysis under the rule of reason.
ANSWER: C
PAGE:
745
8.
TYPE:
TYPE:
Perfecto Appliance Company, Qualit Kitchens Corporation, and

Royale Products, Inc., control 90 percent of the market for appliances
in a certain geographic area. Perfecto, Qualit, and Royale agree to
sell their appliances for the same prices, and to exclude Superia
Appliances, Inc., which controls the other 10 percent of the market.
This is
a.
b.
c.
d.
an anticompetitive practice in violation of the Clayton Act.

a violation of the Sherman Act under the rule of reason.
not a violation of antitrust law.
ANSWER: B
PAGE: 745
TYPE:
146
9.
Thermo Gas, Inc., and Unity Oil Corporation refine and sell gasoline
and other petroleum products. To limit the supply of gas on the
market and thereby raise prices, Thermo Gas and Unity Oil agree to
buy excess supplies from dealers and dispose of it. This is
a.
b.
c.
d.
a
a
a
a
horizontal restraint.
refusal to deal.
resale price maintenance agreement.
vertical restraint.
ANSWER: A
PAGE:
745
10.
a group boycott.
ANSWER: A
PAGE:
745
TYPE:
Energy Power, Inc., joins with other businesses in its industry to

exchange information, represent members interests before
Congress, and lobby for certain regulatory standards. These joint
activities are
a.
b.
c.
d.
not subject to antitrust law.

per se violations of the Sherman Act.
subject to evaluation under the rule of reason.
violations of the Clayton Act.
ANSWER: C
PAGE:
746
12.
Velvet Chassis, Inc., a manufacturer of vehicle parts, refuses to sell

to We-Fix-It, Inc., a national vehicle service firm. Velvet Chassis
convinces Xpert Motor Parts Company, a competitor, to do the same.
This is
a.
b.
c.
d.
11.
TYPE:
TYPE:
Smooth Sailing, Inc., conditions future shipments of its products to

distributors on their agreement to charge the prices set by Smooth.
This is
147
a.
b.
c.
d.
a
a
a
a
barrier to entry.
horizontal restraint.
merger.
vertical restraint.
ANSWER: D
PAGE: 748
TYPE:
148
13.
Lightning ATVs, Inc., makes Lightning-brand all-terrain vehicles and

accessories, which are distributed to authorized dealers, including
Macho Motors, Inc. Macho operates dealerships in several locations.
Lightning imposes territorial restrictions on Macho to insulate other
dealers from direct competition. This is
a.
b.
c.
d.
a horizontal market division.

an interlocking directorate.
a vertical restraint.
ANSWER: D
PAGE:
748
14.
Zippy Moto-Bikes, Inc., wants to prevent discount dealers that carry

its products without providing warranty services from cutting into the
business of full-service dealers. Zippys decision to restrict discount
dealers to one type of customer and full-service dealers to another is
a.
b.
c.
d.

per se violations of the Sherman Act.
violations of the Clayton Act.
ANSWER: C
PAGE: 748
15.
TYPE:
TYPE:
USA Microbial Corporation requires all distributors of its products to

sell the products at specified minimum prices. This resale price
maintenance agreement is
a.
b.
c.
d.

a violation of the Clayton Act.
ANSWER: C
PAGE:
748
TYPE:
149
16.
Spa Selectiva Company makes and sells beauty salon supplies. By

selling its product at prices substantially below the normal cost of
production, Spa Selectiva hopes to drive its competitors from the
market. This is
a.
b.
c.
d.
market power.
predatory pricing.
price-fixing.
ANSWER: B
PAGE:
750
17.
how Alpha acquired its power and what it does with it.
neither how Alpha acquired its power nor what it does with it.
only how Alpha acquired its power.
only what Alpha does with its power.
ANSWER: A
PAGE:
750
TYPE:
Jerseys, Inc., a manufacturer of football uniforms, begins selling its

products at prices substantially below its production costs. Jerseys
continues this practice for a number of months and incurs significant
operating losses. It is probably attempting to implement
a.
b.
c.
d.
a price-fixing scheme.
an exclusive dealing arrangement.
a predatory pricing program.
a conspiracy to restrain trade.
ANSWER: C
PAGE:
750
19.
Wind Turbines, Inc., has the power to control the market for its product. Antitrust law regulates
a.
b.
c.
d.
18.
TYPE:
TYPE:
Imperio Caffeine Corporation makes and sells coffee under a variety

of brand names. Imperio wants to merge with Java Company, its
main competitor. In weighing a challenge to the deal, a court looks
at the relevant product market. This most likely includes coffee and
a.
no other products.
150
b.
c.
d.
products that are not identical but are related, such as spinoffs.
products that are reasonably interchangeable.
products with identical attributes only.
ANSWER: C
PAGE:
751
TYPE:
151
20.
Listen Up! Corporation books and promotes concerts and other

entertainment events, for which Listen Up! also sells tickets. In
weighing a challenge to Listen Up!s monopolistic ticket prices, a
court looks at the relevant geographic market. This encompasses
a.
b.
c.
d.
only areas in which Listen Up! does not have monopoly power.
only areas in which Listen Up! has monopoly power.
the area in which Listen Up! and its competitors sell, and their
customers buy, the tickets.
the entire United States in all cases.
ANSWER: C
PAGE:
NAT: AACSB Reflective
21.
753
AICPA Legal
c.
d.
a per se violation.
a violation if it acquired this power through business
acumen.
a violation if it acquired this power through anticompetitive
means.
not a violation.
ANSWER: C
PAGE:
754
TYPE:
Nano Software, Inc., conditions the sale of its OfficeBooks product on

Payroll Personnel Companys agreeing to buy QuikReVu, Nanos
photo-editing product. This deal is
a.
b.
c.
d.
legal, depending on its purpose and the effect on competition.

legal, depending on production and transportation costs.
legal under any circumstances.
not legal under any circumstances.
ANSWER: A
PAGE:
754
23.
Master Metal Worx Corporation has exclusive control over the market
for its product. Under the Sherman Act, this is
a.
b.
22.
TYPE:
TYPE:
Seaside Cannery, Inc., is one of many producers of canned seafood.

Seaside refuses to sell its products to Troll Harbor Restaurant
Corporation. This refusal is most likely
a.
an anticompetitive practice in violation of the Clayton Act.
152
b.
c.
d.

a violation of the Sherman Act under the rule of reason.
not a violation of antitrust law.
ANSWER: D
PAGE:
754
TYPE:
153
24.
GR8 Boards, Inc., charges different prices to competing buyers for

the same products. This practice is subject to evaluation under
a.
b.
c.
d.
the
the
the
the
Clayton Act.
Federal Trade Commission Act.
Interstate Commerce Act.
Sherman Act.
ANSWER: A
PAGE:
755
25.
a refusal to deal.
business acumen.
predatory bidding.
ANSWER: D
PAGE:
755
TYPE:
An antitrust action is brought against Tri-State Transport Company,

alleging the offense of attempted monopolization. To be guilty of this
offense, Tri-States attempt must have
a.
b.
c.
d.
a
a
a
a
dangerous probability of success.

deadly guaranty of success.
distant possibility of success.
distinct improbability of success.
ANSWER: A
PAGE:
755
27.
To drive its competitors out of a certain geographic segment of its

market, Fryin Potatoes, Inc., sets the prices of its products below
cost for the buyers in that area. This is
a.
b.
c.
d.
26.
TYPE:
TYPE:
Grande Zot, Inc., an electronics manufacturer, sells its DVD players

to Hi-Lo Retail Stores for $50 but charges Its Less! Storewhich is
located just down the street from Hi-Lo$75 for the same players.
This may be
a.
b.
a violation of antitrust law.

exempt from antitrust enforcement.
154
c.
d.

subject only to antitrust common law.
ANSWER: A
PAGE: 755
28.
TYPE:
The Car Parts Company (TCP) and UltraDrive Components, Inc., sell
motor vehicle parts to Vroom! Stores, Inc., and Willys Trucking
Corporation. Price discrimination occurs if
a.
TCP charges Vroom! and Willys different prices for identical
goods.
b.
UltraDrive agrees to charge Willys stable prices even if market
prices change.
c.
Vroom! refuses to buy parts from TCP if its prices are higher
than UltraDrives.
d.
the sellers prices are influenced by the race or gender of the
buyers owners.
ANSWER: A
PAGE:
755
29.
To prevent its competitors from obtaining sufficient supplies to make their

products, Molded Plastics, Inc., uses its market power to increase the
prices of those supplies (inputs which Molded Plastics also uses). This is
a.
b.
c.
d.
a refusal to deal.
business acumen.
predatory bidding.
predatory pricing.
ANSWER: C
PAGE:
755
30.
TYPE:
TYPE:
Electroplate Dishware Corporation conditions shipments of its

products to Flo-Thru Stores, Inc., on Flo-Thrus agreement not to buy
products from Glassy Ware Company, Electroplates competitor. This
is
a.
b.
c.
d.
a smart business deal.
a trade association.
155
ANSWER: A
PAGE:
757
31.
TYPE:
Greeting Cards, Inc. (GCI), requires that the buyers of its line of
greeting cards also agree to buy GCI t-shirts, balloons, and other
products. This is
a.
b.
c.
d.
a group boycott.
ANSWER: D
PAGE: 757
TYPE:
156
32.
By contract, Quintessent Metals Corporation forbids Rad Refining,

Inc., a wholesale buyer of Quintessents products, from purchasing
the products of Quintessents competitors. This exclusive-dealing
contract is allowed
a.
b.
c.
d.
under any circumstances.

unless its effect is to cause a competitor a loss of any
business.
unless its effect is to substantially lessen competition.
unless there is no effect on a competitor.
ANSWER: C
PAGE:
757
33.
a horizontal merger.
an interlocking directorate.
a vertical merger.
ANSWER: A
PAGE:
758
TYPE:
Global Sales, Inc., engages in trade practices that may violate

antitrust law. The Federal Trade Commission has the power to act
against unfair trade practices under
a.
b.
c.
d.
the
the
the
the
Clayton Act.
Federal Trade Commission Act.
Interstate Commerce Act.
Sherman Act.
ANSWER: B
PAGE:
760
35.
XtraOrdinaire Inc. competes with Yowza! Company in the same

market. Their merger would be
a.
b.
c.
d.
34.
TYPE:
TYPE:
Natural Spices, Inc., and Oriental Import Company, two small

condiment companies, form a joint venture to fund research into
producing spices more cost effectively. This is
a.
a violation of antitrust statutes.
157
b.
c.
d.
exempt from antitrust enforcement.

subject only to antitrust common law.
ANSWER: B
PAGE:
762
TYPE:
158
ESSAY QUESTIONS
1.
ProSports, Inc., makes and sells professional sports equipment. The

U.S. Department of Justice files a suit against ProSports, alleging that
it has committed the offense of monopolization under the Sherman
Act. ProSports responds that its share of the relevant market is less
than 50 percent, its activities do not constitute an unreasonable
restraint of trade, and it has no intention of monopolizing the professional sports equipment industry. What are the elements of the
offense of monopolization? Which, if any of ProSportss defenses
would be successful against the charges filed by the U.S.
Department of Justice?
ANSWER:
Initially, the Sherman Act applies only to conduct that
has a significant impact on interstate commerce. Because the courts
construe the term interstate commerce broadly, it is likely that the
situation described in this problem will meet that requirement.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act applies to certain activities on the part
of two or more individuals or firms. Section 2 applies to activities on
the part of a single individual or firm. Because only one firm is
involved in this problem, Section 2 applies. The elements of the
offense of monopolization, which is a violation of Section 2, include
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2)
the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as opposed to
growth as a result of a superior product, business skill, or an historic
accident. For the first element, the relevant market must be
determined, and if ProSports has the power to control prices or exclude competition in that market, it has monopoly power. For the
second element, intent may be inferred if ProSports has monopoly
power and engaged in anticompetitive conduct. Anticompetitive
conduct would be activities that diminish competition without
providing better products or production. Because intent is an
element of this offense, it must be proved. If ProSports can
successfully show that it had no intent to monopolize its market, the
Department of Justice will lose its case. ProSportss other asserted
defenses would not be successful. No specific percentage of the
relevant market needs to be shown for the U.S. Department of
Justice to win its suit, and whether ProSportss activities constitute
an unreasonable restraint of trade is not a consideration because the
rule of reason does not apply to the offense of monopolization.
PAGES:
742, 743 & 750755
TYPE:
159
NAT: AACSB Reflective AICPA Decision Modeling

2.
Bubbly Bottling Company is engaged in the soft-drink bottling and

distribution industry in the states of New York and New Jersey. The
firm currently has about 40 percent of the market for these products
and related services. Carbonate Distribution Corporation competes
with Bubbly in the same states. Carbonate has about 35 percent of
the market. If Bubbly were to acquire the stock and assets of
Carbonate, would Bubbly be in violation of any of the antitrust laws?
If so, which one? Discuss fully.
ANSWER:
Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits the type of
action by Bubbly suggested in this questiona horizontal merger
that would increase market concentration. Other factors include the
overall concentration of the relevant market, that markets history of
tending toward concentration, and whether the merger is apparently
designed to establish market power or restrict competition. Based
on the facts stated in the question, most of these factors are
present. Thus, the major antitrust law being violated is Section 7 of
the Clayton Act.
Section 7 prohibits any person or business
organization from acquiring the stock or assets in another business
where the result would be a significantly increased market share and
the effect would most likely be to substantially lessen competition.
The removal of a competitor who controls 35 percent of the market
(Carbonate) combined with the 40 percent held by the acquiring
company (Bubbly) definitely could drive out the remaining small
competitors and be a barrier to future entrants into this market.
Either the U.S. Department of Justice or the Federal Trade
Commission could file for divestiture of the resulting firm if these
parties were to merge.
PAGES:
758760 & 760761
TYPE:
N
NAT: AACSB Reflective AICPA Decision Modeling

LET 6e-TB-Ch23

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LET 6e-TB-Ch23

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

135

CHAPTER 23: ANTITRUST LAW AND PROMOTING COMPEITTION

A market in which there is more than one seller, even if only a

Using market power to drive competitors out of business is illegal.

Monopoly power is an extreme amount of market power.

Any agreement that enhances market power is an unreasonable

UNIT FOUR: THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

To violate antitrust law, an activity must involve two or more

CHAPTER 23: ANTITRUST LAW AND PROMOTING COMPEITTION

An act must have a substantial impact on interstate commerce to

A geographical market division between rival firms does not violate

A group boycott against a supplier for political reasons may not be

A price-fixing agreement does not violate the Sherman Act if there is

Under the rule of reason, a court will consider the purpose of an

If an agreement is a per se violation of antitrust laws, there must be

Agreements among members of trade or professional organizations

UNIT FOUR: THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

An agreement between firms operating at different levels in the

CHAPTER 23: ANTITRUST LAW AND PROMOTING COMPEITTION

In a concentrated industry, a single firm or a small number of firms

Predatory pricing is above-cost pricing.

Acquiring monopoly power through anticompetitive means violates

A firm can have monopoly power without violating antitrust law.

Minimum resale price maintenance agreements are subject to

Maximum resale price maintenance agreements are subject to

A relevant product market consists of two elements: a product

UNIT FOUR: THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

Conditioning the sale of one product on the purchase of another is a

Under an exclusive-dealing contract, a seller promises a buyer a

Charging different prices to different buyers for identical goods is

To violate antitrust law, an attempt to monopolize a market must be

Predatory bidding is analyzed under the same standards as

A tying arrangement is illegal per se.

CHAPTER 23: ANTITRUST LAW AND PROMOTING COMPEITTION

Cooperative research by small-business firms is exempt from

All professional sports are exempt from antitrust regulation.

U.S. antitrust law may protect foreign consumers and competitors

A private party who has been injured as a result of a violation of

U.S. firms may be subject to other nations antitrust laws.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

UNIT FOUR: THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

Congress enacts a statute to outlaw a specific type of

a federal trade pact.

CHAPTER 23: ANTITRUST LAW AND PROMOTING COMPEITTION

Helio Company can process hydrogen into an inexpensive fuel for

a common, legal, time-honored type of business arrangement.

Seven Ivy League colleges and universities conspire to fix tuition

North Mining Company and South Excavation Companyrival firms

Indigo Packaging, Inc., a manufacturer of packaging papers and

UNIT FOUR: THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

CHAPTER 23: ANTITRUST LAW AND PROMOTING COMPEITTION

Health Resources Corporation makes and sells Intake, the most

a deal that neither restrains trade or harms competition.

Perfecto Appliance Company, Qualit Kitchens Corporation, and

an anticompetitive practice in violation of the Clayton Act.

UNIT FOUR: THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

Energy Power, Inc., joins with other businesses in its industry to

not subject to antitrust law.

Velvet Chassis, Inc., a manufacturer of vehicle parts, refuses to sell

Smooth Sailing, Inc., conditions future shipments of its products to

CHAPTER 23: ANTITRUST LAW AND PROMOTING COMPEITTION

UNIT FOUR: THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

Lightning ATVs, Inc., makes Lightning-brand all-terrain vehicles and

a horizontal market division.