Answer:
It is a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act for competitors to divide up territories or customers.
The same violation would take place if the three firms to divide up their territories by customers.
Answer:
Monopolization:
In the case Christy Sports, LLC v. Deer Valley Resort Co. (DVRC), 555 F.3d 1188 (10 th Cir. 2009) the court dismissed Christy's suit. The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court determined that DVRC did not attempt to monopolize in violation of the Sherman Act §2. Since DVRC had a universal sales contract with all of its tenants that reserved the right of approval over the conduct of certain businesses on the property, including ski rentals, it was within its rights to return to a position that it had in the beginning.
DVRC had expressly informed Christy in their contract that their relationship could change at any time. Christy knew from the signing of the contract that its ski rental business could operate only with DVRC's permission.
Therefore, DVRC did not commit an action in an attempt to monopolize in violation of the Sherman Act §2.
Answer:
As per the Court the reasonableness of a price-fixing agreement is never a defense.
Any agreement that restricts output or artificially fixes prices is a per se violation of Section 1.