Quiz 47: Antitrust Law


The stare decisis would create an opposite ruling for the case, as the the precedent set by other cases relied on a legal doctrine, rather than a tangible economic effect. Stare decisis would have led to the appellate court affirming the decision of the trial court and granting damages to L. However, as the higher court argued here, there was no proof that the resale price issue had a tangible economic effect on the plaintiff. Thus, the court should not have applied the stare decisis doctrine.

Group Boycott: Traditionally, courts have considered group boycotts to constitute per se violations of the Sherman Act §1. In this case, No-Glow used unethical persuasion techniques to force supplies to boycott selling appliances to Jorge's Appliances by threatening to take their high-volume purchasing power elsewhere. If Jorge can prove that No-Glow and the suppliers acted in concert to eliminate his business from competition, he will have a successful action.

The court would want to measure the anticompetitive effects, including a decreased output, stimulation in interbrand competition, and the increase in options to consumers at different price levels. The court is really focusing on the actual economic effects and what would beneficial to stimulating the market.

Related Quizzes