The owner of a Company BE, PS sued antitrust against the Company SB through exclusive leases. On the other end just because of exclusive leases of SB Person PS stated that other coffee café owners are unable to open and run cafes due to SB's deals w.r.t lease. The lease includes that the building owners cannot provide space in the same building for another coffee café. Moreover, the SB's cafes are located very close to each other that creates a loss for other cafés in the area.
Antitrust laws stand for collection of federal and state laws to regulate and conduct organization of business corporations fairly and in competitive manner to benefit the consumers.
It is a common conversation when landlords and tenants are negotiating a retail lease. It is a provision that prohibits a landlord from leasing to another tenant which belongs to the same domain of the business as the existing tenant.
According to antitrust law, every contract, which is a combination of trust and conspiracy to limit trade is said to be illegal.
Such an exclusive lease that SB deals with the building owners that prevents them to offer building space to other cafes is illegal and simple violation of any antitrust laws. This is because as per antitrust laws, business corporations must run their businesses fairly and with competitiveness. one cannot prevent other cafes and business corporations to set up at the same building to do business.
Therefore, one can agree that it does violate antitrust law about market allocation. As, SB created a monopoly and person like PS who don't have enough money to open a new coffee shop every 2 blocks can't compete with that.SB put out of business many other coffee shops not only on SBC but around the world.
Under antitrust laws competitors must cooperate with each other in good faith. For example, radios and newspaper are competitors for advertising. If a radio station has a program coming up it wants to advertise on the news, the newspaper must allow it to advertise unless there's a reasonable basis for them to refuse.
Refer to case Aspen Skiing Company v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation (1985) (472 U.S. 585) to answer question as below.
The following are relevant facts to the case:
1) This is a Supreme Court case to review a jury awarding for damages to Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation (Highlands)
2) Jury decision was based on Aspen Skiing Company (Ski Co) violating section 2 of Sherman Antitrust Act which prohibits attempts of monopolizing power
3) Both Ski companies had a joint ticket arrangement called the All-aspen ticket. The tickets purchased in either companies were usable in skiing facilities in Aspen. Ski Co the larger company canceled this arrangement which resulted in sale losses by Highland.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision. The court found Ski Co's efficiency claim, unpersuasive as it kept joint ticket arrangements in other locations. It also found that Ski Co undercut ticket prices by offering 3-day and 6-day ticket sales which significantly harmed the business of its competitors, "Ski Co. was not motivated by efficiency concerns…it was willing to sacrifice short-run benefits and consumer goodwill in exchange for a perceived long-run impact on its smaller rival."
• American Crystal Sugar Co.(Defendant) and other sugar refiners companies in California adopted fixed price for beets of similar quality
• Mandeville Island (plaintiff) sold beets to the defendants for sugar refinery. However, they sued contending that the price for amongst the defendants is a violation of the Sherman Act, monopoly of the market (in this case monopsony, single buyer, is a more appropriate term)
• The district court ruled in favor of plaintiff appeals court reversed, plaintiff appealed
The Sherman Act is applicable in the present case on the following reasons:
• The pricing of the beets were influenced by the group of the contractors and reduced the actual price of the beets
• The uniform fixation of the prices should meet the minimum pricing expectations of the sugar beet growers
• As the overall process of the growing takes place in the same state, the law would be applicable
• The growers could recover the best price for the beets with the involvement of the federal bodies
Thus, the Sherman Act is applicable and the growers could recover with the involvement of the law.