Price Fixing : The State Wins

1080 WordsApr 2, 20165 Pages
Price Fixing Q: Who wins? A: The State wins because “illegal price fixing includes setting minimum or maximum prices or fixing the quantity of a product or service to be produced or provided,” (p.176). Foundation established a maximum fee schedule, thus fixing a maximum price and engaging in a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The State wins because Foundation established a maximum fee schedule and participated in a price fixing per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act according to page 176 of the textbook. 2. Division of Market Q: Who wins? A: The United States wins because Topco had a series of member stores that agreed to sell only Topco brand products within an exclusive territory. This is sufficient proof…show more content…
It is clear that the Mercedes-Benz vehicles are tied to the Mercedes-Benz parts, and that MBNA is guilty of a tying arrangement and thus a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 4. Resale Price Maintenance Q: Who wins? A: According to the textbook, resale price maintenance is “ a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act that occurs when a party at one level of distribution enters into an agreement with a party at another level to adhere to a price schedule that either sets or stabilizes”, (p. 178). The case specifies “the retail price fixed by Union Oil for gasoline during the period in question was 29.9 cents per gallon,” and “the franchise agreement provided that all dealers must adhere to the retail price of gasoline as set by Union Oil,” (p.191). The case notes earlier “Union Oil could cancel if a dealer did not adhere to the contract,” (p.191). This evidence is enough to say that Union Oil had set a fixed price for gasoline, and required that all of their dealers sold gasoline at that price. If the dealer did not comply, the partnership could be terminated. This evidences that Union Oil had entered “into an agreement with a party at another level to adhere to a price schedule
Open Document