Problems – 33

“Case 33.1 Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.

S. 332, 102 S. Ct. 2466, 73 L.Ed.

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

2d 48, Web 1982 U.S. exis 5 (Supreme Court of the United States).” According to section 1 of the Sherman act, it is unlawful for competitors to agree to sell products at certain prices, manipulate tenders or result to actions that tend to block fellow competitors from competing in the market share.

The Maricopa Foundation for Medical Care established a fee for various medical services provided to its patients. It is also against the law for qualified practitioners to set prices. Doctors of the Maricopa foundation and society agreed to abide by the regulated fee schedule set by Maricopa Society and Foundation when providing services to patients. Violation of the above act does not require evidence of written agreements but can be verified through testimonials from suppliers, wary tender outlines, reports and much more. (antitrust.complaints@usdoj.

gov) “Case 33.5 Greyhound v. International Business Machine Corporation, 559 F.2d 488, Web 1977 U.S. App.

Lexis 11957 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)”In order to violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the defendant must have either “controlled”, “tried to control” or has “come together or plotted with anyone to take over, control or corner the market of certain products. The international Business Machine Corp attempted to monopolize Greyhound by reducing their discount after noticing that the balance between sales and leases was turned heavily towards sales and that leasing companies (in this case Greyhound)was getting more market therefore nibbling away on their profits. Furthermore, the domination of market shares is not unlawful except when a supplier attempts to prevent other suppliers from competing with him. IBM did not wish to compete for its market share with Greyhound.

(US Dep’t of Justice, 2008)”Case 33.8 Corn Products Refining Company v. Federal Trade Commission, 324 U.S. 726, 65 S. Ct.

961, 89 L.Ed. 1320, Web 1945 U.S. Lexis 2749 (Supreme Court of the United States)”Section 2(a) of the Robinson Patman Act bars wholesalers from any form of price favoritism when selling respective products to buyers that are of similar of condition and value, tend to minimize rivalry for market share during trading, create some form of market superiority, or affect healthy competition between retailers.

Corn Products Refining Company charged the same freight charges for glucose shipped from Kansas with the one shipped from Chicago giving Chicago purchasers an advantage over the Kansas buyers thus putting Chicago buyers in a better position for competing in business. (Clark, 2007)”Case 33.9 United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

, 353 U.S. 586, 77 Act. 872, 1 L.Ed.

2d 1057, Web 1957 U.S. Lexis 1755 (Supreme Court of the United States)”Section 7 of the Clayton states that it is unlawful for suppliers to come together if the resulting unification will tend to reduce availability of market for products or initiate dominion of one market shareholder over another. DuPont purchased 23%of personal holdings at general motors and went on to further purchase a commanding sizable stock in general motors’ with a means of creating monopoly on General Motors. General Motors automotive finishes and fabrics represent one half of the relevant market lessening the competition of the market. (Baumer, 2003)