Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Second, because the law does not seek to prohibit every kind of agreement that hinders freedom of contract, it developed a "rule of reason" where a practice might restrict trade in a way that is seen as positive or beneficial for consumers or society. Third, significant problems of proof and identification of wrongdoing arise where businesses ...
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 [1] (26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce and consequently prohibits unfair monopolies.
The United States Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have joint responsibilities for enforcement of the antitrust laws. Though the FTC has some overlapping responsibilities with the Department of Justice, and although the Robinson–Patman Act is an amendment to the Clayton Act, the Robinson–Patman Act is not widely ...
The rule of reason is a legal doctrine used to interpret the Sherman Antitrust Act, one of the cornerstones of United States antitrust law.While some actions like price-fixing are considered illegal per se, other actions, such as possession of a monopoly, must be analyzed under the rule of reason and are only considered illegal when their effect is to unreasonably restrain trade.
Austria passed a law in 1870 abolishing the penalties, though such agreements remained void. However, in Germany laws clearly validated agreements between firms to raise prices. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, ideas that dominant private companies or legal monopolies could excessively restrict trade were further developed in Europe.
Tortious interference, which occurs when one competitor convinces a party having a relationship with another competitor to breach a contract with, or duty to, the other competitor is also prohibited at common law. Anti-competitive agreements: Firms may enter into agreements that limit competition, such as agreements to fix prices, limit ...
The Supreme Court orders a regional railway monopoly, formed through a merger of 3 corporations, to be dissolved. Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905) The antitrust laws entitled the federal government to regulate monopolies that had a direct impact on commerce; Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911)
The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 (Pub. L. 63–212, 38 Stat. 730, enacted October 15, 1914, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 12–27, 29 U.S.C. §§ 52–53), is a part of United States antitrust law with the goal of adding further substance to the U.S. antitrust law regime; the Clayton Act seeks to prevent anticompetitive practices in their incipiency.