Mitch Matthews at M&M Furniture Co. had an argument with the Selphi Sofa representative, so he decided that M&M would boycott Selphi . Under the Sherman Act, this is:
A) per se illegal.
B) no violation.
C) a tying arrangement.
D) vertical market allocation.

Question

Mitch Matthews at M&M Furniture Co. had an argument with the Selphi Sofa representative, so he decided that M&M  would boycott Selphi . Under the Sherman Act, this is:
A) per se illegal.
B) no violation.
C) a tying arrangement.
D) vertical market allocation.

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Boycotting a supplier or a product by a single company, such as M&M Furniture Co. deciding not to purchase from Selphi Sofa, does not violate the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act primarily addresses anti-competitive practices that involve collusion between separate entities or monopolistic practices, neither of which applies to a single company's decision to stop buying from a specific supplier.