The Decision For Us Federal Antitrust Law

Companies in the retail industry operate in a high price elasticity environment as there is not much product differentiation to leverage. Buyers face almost no switching cost if they chose a substitute offering better value. On the contrary, large and diverse population making small purchases works in favor of the industry. No one individual or a small group has the power to significantly impact the industry, but overall buyers enjoy have a high bargaining power in the industry.

In the second case Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital, Corporate Negligence was clearly performed. Invispress.com states that “the existence of the records shows that Misericordia had been negligent in hiring Salinsky”. The facility should have done a more thorough investigation and followed the state’s bylaws and statutes pertaining to the proper credential verification on Dr. Salinsky upon applying to Misericordia Community Hospital before giving him the privilege to practice. If only they would have done that, they would have realized that Dr. Salinsky had falsified numerous statements on his application. I personally think that both the hospital as well as Dr. Salinsky are both at fault for the permanent damage they caused the patient

The ideas that corporations are viewed as people in the eyes of the law seems like a farfetched idea. However, with closer examination one cannot help but wonder if this is truly becoming the case. Since the 1950’s the rights of corporations have been expanding through multiple court cases that have charted the way for more recent cases like Citizens United v. FEC and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores . To better understand the notion that corporations are sometimes viewed as people it is important to understand the definition of a corporation. In the dictionary, a corporation is defined as a number of persons united in one body for a purpose . Even though it is hard for many to view a corporation as a “person”, it is undeniable that corporations

To understand antitrust immunity, one must understand the different tests the United States Supreme Court has applied to state’s agencies and boards to determine immunity. Courts largely use two tests to determine whether an entity has immunity from antitrust laws. Both tests provide the same immunity, but they require the entity seeking the immunity to prove different requirements. The first test is the sovereign actor test, and it provides immunity to state actors using sovereign power. The second test, known as the Midcal test, asks whether the entity seeking immunity is following a clearly articulated state policy, and whether the entity is actively supervised by the state. Both of these tests are

Excellent post this week! The driving force behind a labor dispute is usually associated with money. There is typically a demand for an owner to increase their profits each year, while the players desire to make more money each year as well. The benefits of a collective bargaining agreement are that it will ensure there is some level of equality for both the owners and the players in negotiations. What is your opinion on the Sherman Antitrust Act? Do you believe that baseball should be treated as if it were any other sport? The Sherman Antitrust Act was established in order to allow baseball to operate more freely, but at what cost to everyone else? These players were absolutely treated like a piece of property, which is somewhat understandable

The opposing side received a 10% when using services of the State Bank in an ATM. The person claimed the activity to be the violation of Section one of the Sherman Antitrust Act. There the issue has to be considered from this perspective.

availability of substitutes 1, and the threat of retaliation from incumbents (by lowering price, for

This case launched when the Department of Revenue notified American Business USA Corporation they would be conducting an audit of the accounts and records. After completion of the audit the Department of Revenue issued a proposed tax assessment pursuant to section 212.05 91) (l) of the Florida Statute against American Business USA Corporation for taxes and interest of internet sales transactions.

They helped bring change food-inspections laws were passed antitrust laws were enforced reforming mayors were elected to office. They wrote about city bosses and told how dishonest they were and they cheated citizens of their rights and money. They wrote about the injustice, unfairness, and

As many other students can attest to I was quite young while this case was going on. Now

In the late 1900s, many of the laws and case files made to the United States Supreme Court were all centered on the Civil Rights Act and its many Titles it contained. One such title in question as the Second Title simply known as Title II, in a case titled Heart of Atlanta vs. United States. In this writing, the case will be covered in terms of its importance, why the Supreme Court created the Interstate Commerce Clause, and why most commerce today is seen as interstate commerce above all else.

Facts: The Food and Drug Administration issued a rule in 1996 that prohibited the tobacco products labeling, promotion, and availability to young people (children and adolescents). The FDA claimed that as per Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), it had authority to regulate tobacco products because nicotine is a drug and devices such as cigarettes and smokeless tobacco deliver nicotine to the body. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation sued challenging the FDA regulations over tobacco product under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. They claimed that history of the Act did not allow the FDA to regulate the tobacco products. The United States District Court ruled that the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act allowed the FDA to regulate tobacco product as a device, but under section 360 (e) the agency had overstepped its authority to promote and advertise tobacco products. The Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit reversed the decision of District Court, holding that FDA had no jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. Because, the description of tobacco (as a device) was imperfect and the agency could not verify that the impact of tobacco products on the body was intended under the act.

Competitive Rivalry.  Retailers always face stiff competition. The slow market growth for the retail market means that firms must fight each other for market share. More recently, they have tried to reduce the cutthroat pricing competition by offering frequent points, memberships and other special services to try and gain the customer's loyalty.

Vertex introduced standardized and individualized target rebates to distributors in the Western Europe. Target rebates may not be problematic if they are indeed genuine quantity-based, but a target rebate may be found abusive if it limits the buyer’s freedom to choose (Michelin I). Nonetheless, rebate schemes may result in suction effect – the dominant firm lowers the average price of its products and captures contestable sales which the firm was unable to capture before. Vertex offered two largest distributors in the market rolled-back target rebates. Under this scheme, rebates were applied to the total turnover previously realized over a certain period. The court has been harsh in treating rebates without fully considering the theory of harm of

The retail industry is a prime example of the modern version of Chamberlin and Robinson’s model of Monopolistic Competition (Grewal, 441). The retail industry consists of vast markets with different brands and goods of one common goal, to sell their products. To cater to this rapidly changing market many large scale retailers are findings ways to make their product more appealing to the public in hopes of gaining market share over their competition. As prices rise, customers are forced to buy substitutes of well-known brand names or alter their preferences. This results in the phenomenon known as monopolistic competition.