Ch 30 Government Regulations: Securities and Antitrust
The seller requires the buyer to purchase the two products together,
The seller is shutting out a significant part of the market for the tied product.
The seller has no significant power in the market place.
18. If a company has violated antitrust laws:
the Justice Department can initiate only noncriminal charges against the violator.
the Federal Trade Commission may file criminal proceedings against the violator.
any private person or company that has been harmed by the violator can file a lawsuit to recover damages.
19. The most accurate statement about the Robinson-Patman Act is:
It has rarely been enforced in recent years.
The U.S. government has stepped up its enforcement during the last decade.
It has been declared unconstitutional.
It was repealed by Congress in 1998.
20. The U.S. Attorney General brought a Sherman Act lawsuit against competitors in the widget market. The Attorney
General alleged that these companies agreed to charge $20 for widgets. Which of the following defenses may apply?
That the $20 price was fair.
That the $20 price was lower than the price before the agreement.
That the businesses did not agree to charge $20 for widgets.
That the competitors would have gone out of business without the agreement.
21. A marketing representative who is tempted to engage in price-fixing due to heavy competition and similar prices for
competitors' products should:
emphasize factors of her product that do not involve price.
emphasize service, reliability, and other factors of her company.
understand the serious criminal and civil penalties of engaging in price-fixing.
22. Ed was an independent owner of a chain of TV stores. He successfully got customers into his store by cutting his
prices on widely advertised name-brand products in order to sell other products for which he received a bigger profit.
When the manufacturers of three of the name-brand products discovered Ed's actions, they agreed secretly to stop selling
him their TVs. The three manufacturers:
are doing nothing illegal, as they did not get Ed to agree to anything.
are free to agree not to deal with Ed since the public can go elsewhere and will not be hurt economically.
can choose either as a group to deal or not to deal with any retailer they want.
are engaged in a rule of reason violation of the antitrust laws if their action harms competition.