Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
216. Vertical exclusionary practices do not include:
a. boycotts
b. tying arrangements
c. price fixing by competitors
d. exclusive dealing arrangements
e. all of the other choices are vertical exclusionary practices
217. When a seller will sell a product only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different product, there is
a(n):
a. resale price maintenance agreement
b. exclusive dealing arrangement
c. group boycott
d. tie-in sale
e. Robinson-Patman price discrimination sale
218. When a seller will sell a product only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different product, there is
a(n):
a. resale price maintenance agreement
b. exclusive dealing arrangement
c. group boycott
d. Robinson-Patman price discrimination sale
e. none of the other choices
219. The requirement that if one product or service is purchased then another product or service must also be
purchased, even if not desired by the customer, is called:
a. a tying arrangement
b. a boycott
c. a merger
d. a cartel
e. a discrimination
220. The requirement that if one product or service is purchases then another product or service must also be purchased,
even if not desired by the customer, is called:
a. a price discrimination
b. a boycott
c. a merger
d. a cartel
e. none of the other choices
221. A tying arrangement occurs when:
a. a distributor is limited in who it can sell a product to
b. there is a requirement that if one product or service is purchases then another product or service must also
be purchased
c. there is a requirement that a certain amount of a product is purchased
d. the area where a product can be distributed is limited
e. a customer buys from two different suppliers
222. A tying arrangement occurs when:
a. a distributor is limited in who it can sell a product to
b. a customer buys from two different suppliers
c. there is a requirement that a certain amount of a product is purchased
d. the area where a product can be distributed is limited
e. none of the other choices are correct
223. Tie-in arrangements are considered to be a violation of the antitrust laws when the:
a. company insisting on the tie-in has monopoly power
b. company insisting on the tie-in interferes with pre-existing contracts of the buyer
c. buyer interferes with pre-existing contracts of the seller
d. buyer is fully integrated vertically
e. none of the other choices
224. Tie-in arrangements are allowed under which of the following conditions:
a. they reduce competition
b. they create a monopoly
c. there are competitive alternatives
d. there are no competitive alternatives
e. they are limited to a small geographic area
225. Tie-in arrangements are allowed under which of the following conditions:
a. they reduce competition
b. they create a monopoly
c. they are limited to a small geographic area
d. there are no competitive alternatives
e. none of the other choices are correct
226. In U.S. Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, U.S. Steel loaned Fortner money to buy mobile homes from the
company to put in his mobile home park, the Supreme Court held that it was:
a. illegal for U.S. Steel to tie the sale of the homes to the financing
b. an illegal boycott for U.S. Steel to refuse to lend the money once they sold the homes
c. illegal for the homes to be sold with the financing since it created an exclusive deal
d. not illegal to tie the sale of the homes with the financing because there was no monopoly power involved
e. not price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act to fix the home price together with the financing
rate
227. In U.S. Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, U.S. Steel loaned Fortner money to buy mobile homes from the
company to put in his mobile home park, the Supreme Court held that it was:
a. illegal for U.S. Steel to tie the sale of the homes to the financing
b. an illegal boycott for U.S. Steel to refuse to lend the money once they sold the homes
c. illegal for the homes to be sold with the financing since it created an exclusive deal
d. not price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act to fix the home price together with the financing
rate
e. none of the other choices
228. In U.S. Steel v. Fortner Enterprises, the Supreme Court had to determine if a tie-in between the purchase of
mobile homes and the financing of a land purchase violated the antitrust laws. The Court applied which test in
making this determination?
a. stare decisis
b. a Noerr-Pennington test
c. a per se rule
d. an irrational basis test
e. a rule of reason analysis
229. In U.S. Steel v. Fortner Enterprises, the Supreme Court had to determine if a tie-in between the purchase of
mobile homes and the financing of a land purchase violated the antitrust laws. The Court applied which test in
making this determination?
a. stare decisis
b. a Noerr-Pennington test
c. a per se rule
d. an irrational basis test
e. none of the other choices
230. The recently enacted Anti-Monopoly Law in the People's Republic of China is:
a. structured more like the U.S. antitrust law than antitrust law in the EU
b. structured more like the EU antitrust law than antitrust law in the U.S.
c. applicable only to horizontal agreements
d. applicable only to vertical agreements
e. completely useless
231. According to the Department of Justice Vertical Restraint Guidelines tie-in sales will be per se illegal if the
following conditions exist except for which one:
a. the seller has market power in the tying product
b. the tying product is a common necessity for consumers
c. the tied and tying products are separate goods
d. there is evidence of substantial adverse effect in the tied product market
e. all of the other choices are part of the Guidelines
232. Which of the following conditions must be met for the Supreme Court to impose a per se rule of illegality on a tie-in
case:
a. the seller has market power in the tying product
b. tied and tying products are separate
c. there is evidence of substantial adverse effect in the tied product market
d. all three of the other specific choices must be met
e. none of the three specific choices must be met
233. If a company imposing a tie-in has a market share of
not be challenged.
a. more than 50%
b. less than 80%
c. less than 50%
d. less than 30%
e. more than 35%
in the market for the tying product, the use of tying will
234. If a company imposing a tie-in has a market share of
not be challenged.
a. more than 50%
b. less than 80%
c. less than 50%
d. more than 35%
e. none of the other choices are correct
in the market for the tying product, the use of tying will
235. In Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services, Kodak was charged with tying the sale of service of their
copiers and other equipment to the sale of parts. The Supreme Court ruled:
a. no tying arrangement existed because the markets for service and sale of parts overlapped
b. a tying arrangement existed and Kodak had potential monopoly power
c. a tying arrangement existed, but Kodak held a small share of the market for service and parts, so rule of
reason analysis allowed the arrangement to stand
d. no tying arrangement existed because independent service organizations could purchase Kodak parts from
Kodak whenever they so desired
e. no tying arrangement was proved to have existed, so there could be no antitrust illegality
236. In Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services, Kodak was charged with tying the sale of service of their
copiers and other equipment to the sale of parts. The Supreme Court ruled:
a. no tying arrangement existed because the markets for service and sale of parts overlapped
b. no tying arrangement was proved to have existed, so there could be no antitrust illegality
c. a tying arrangement existed, but Kodak held a small share of the market for service and parts, so rule of
reason analysis allowed the arrangement to stand
d. no tying arrangement existed because independent service organizations could purchase Kodak parts from
Kodak whenever they so desired
e. none of the other choices
237. When a group of competitors conspire to prevent the carrying on of business or to harm a business it is a:
a. strike
b. boycott
c. lock out
d. black out
e. none of the other choices
238. When a group of competitors conspire to prevent the carrying on of business or to harm a business it is a(n):
a. strike
b. exclusive deal
c. lock out
d. tie in
e. none of the other choices
239. A occurs when a group conspires to prevent the carrying on of business or to harm a business.
a. strike
b. boycott
c. stand-in
d. tie in
e. lock out
240. A occurs when a group conspires to prevent the carrying on of business or to harm a business.
a. strike
b. lock out
c. stand-in
d. tie in
e. none of the other choices are correct
241. Which of the following groups could promote a boycott:
a. consumers
b. union members
c. retailers
d. wholesalers
e. all of the other specific choices are possible
242. Which of the following is probably an illegal boycott?
a. retailers join together to refuse to buy from distributors who do something the retailers do not like
b. distributors join together to refuse to sell to retailers who do something the wholesalers do not like
c. doctors in a city, agree through the City Medical Association, to refuse to take welfare patients because the
city will not pay as much as the doctors think they should be paid
d. none of the other choices
e. all of the other specific choices
243. The 1936 legislation known as the Robinson-Patman Act, amended which law?
a. the Clayton Act
b. the Sherman Act
c. the Lanham Act
d. the Kellogg-Brian Pact
e. the Federal Trade Commission Act
244. The 1936 legislation known as the Robinson-Patman Act, amended which law?
a. the FTC Act
b. the Sherman Act
c. the Lanham Act
d. the Kellogg-Brian Pact
e. none of the other choices
245. The Clayton Act was amended by the Robinson-Patman Act in:
a. 1909
b. 1930
c. 1936
d. 1946
e. 1950
246. The Robinson-Patman Act concerns:
a. price discrimination
b. boycotts
c. territorial restraints
d. price discrimination and boycotts
e. price discrimination, boycotts and territorial restraints
247. The Robinson-Patman Act concerns:
a. exclusive dealing
b. boycotts
c. territorial restraints
d. all of the other specific choices
e. none of the other choices
248. Price discrimination was made unlawful by:
a. the Robinson-Patman Act
b. the Price Discrimination Act
c. the Price Fixing Act
d. the Lanham Act
e. the Sherman Act
249. Price discrimination was made unlawful by:
a. the Sherman Act
b. the Price Discrimination Act
c. the Price Fixing Act
d. the Lanham Act
e. none of the other choices are correct
250. Charging different prices in different markets for the same goods is called:
a. boycott pricing
b. price discrimination
c. price disparagement
d. boycotting
e. vertical discrimination
251. Charging different prices in different markets for the same goods is called:
a. boycott pricing
b. vertical discrimination
c. price disparagement
d. boycotting
e. none of the other choices
252. Price discrimination under Robinson-Patman is said to occur when different:
a. sellers sell the same product at varying prices
b. sellers agree to charge the same price for their products
c. buyers pay the same price to a seller for the same product
d. buyers pay different prices to a seller for the same product
e. sellers demand the same price from different buyers
253. Price discrimination under Robinson-Patman is said to occur when different:
a. sellers sell the same product at varying prices
b. sellers agree to charge the same price for their products
c. buyers pay the same price to a seller for the same product
d. sellers demand the same price from different buyers
e. none of the other choices
254. A controversial aspect of the Robinson-Patman Act is that it:
a. allows sellers to charge different prices for different buyers
b. tends to over-stimulate competition
c. denies consumers some of the benefits that result from mass merchandizing
d. denies sellers some benefits of vertical integration
e. all of the other choices
255. A controversial aspect of the Robinson-Patman Act is that it:
a. allows sellers to charge different prices for different buyers
b. tends to over-stimulate competition
c. discourages small retailers from being able to compete
d. denies sellers some benefits of vertical integration
e. all of the other choices
256. A practice of engaging in price discrimination in different markets in an attempt to undercut competitors is known
as:
a. predatory pricing
b. the offense of meeting the competition
c. retailer cartelization
d. exclusive dealing
e. none of the other choices
257. A practice of engaging in price discrimination in different markets in an attempt to undercut competitors is known
as:
a. boycotting
b. the offense of meeting the competition
c. retailer cartelization
d. exclusive dealing
e. none of the other choices
258. Discriminating in price between different purchasers of the same goods, when the effect is to injure competition,
was made:
a. illegal by the Robinson-Patman Act
b. illegal by the Supreme Court in the Brooke Group case
c. legal by the FTC Act
d. legal by the Supreme Court in the Brooke Group case
e. none of the other choices
259. Discriminating in price between different purchasers of the same goods, when the effect is to injure competition,
was made:
a. an illegal resale of services by the Supreme Court in Texaco v. Hasbrouck
b. illegal by the Supreme Court in the Brooke Group case
c. legal by the FTC Act
d. legal by the Supreme Court in the Brooke Group case
e. none of the other choices
260. The Robinson-Patman Act:
a. prohibits the use of cartel arrangements in the pricing of consumer products
b. restricts the ability of sellers to price discriminate
c. restricts the acquisition of the assets of companies in direct competition
d. led to the opening of advertising by professionals in Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar
e. makes professional baseball exempt from the Sherman Act
261. The Robinson-Patman Act:
a. prohibits the use of cartel arrangements in the pricing of consumer products
b. makes professional baseball exempt from the Sherman Act
c. restricts the acquisition of the assets of companies in direct competition
d. led to the opening of advertising by professionals in Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar
e. none of the other choices
262. To win a case involving predatory pricing claims, a plaintiff must prove:
a. the defendant would keep its monopoly position long enough to recoup the losses it suffers during a price war
b. the defendant's actions created a genuine prospect that it would monopolize the market
c. the defendant prices its goods above the price of its competitor's goods
d. the defendant would keep its monopoly position long enough to recoup the losses it suffers during a price war
and the defendant's actions created a genuine prospect that it would monopolize the market
e. the defendant would keep its monopoly position long enough to recoup the losses it suffers during a price war
and the defendant's actions created a genuine prospect that it would monopolize the market and the
defendant prices its goods above the price of its competitor's goods
263. Which of the following must be shown by a plaintiff to win a case of predatory pricing:
a. the defendant priced below cost
b. the defendant's below-cost prices created a genuine prospect that the defendant would monopolize the
market
c. the defendant would enjoy its monopoly at least long enough to recoup the losses it suffered during the price
war
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
264. Under the Robinson-Patman Act, a producer may not be able to charge one retailer a lower price than it charges
another retailer just because the first retailer buys more merchandise. Volume discounts can be a violation of the
Robinson-Patman because, according to the law:
a. price discounts injure competition
b. price discounts unfairly target urban areas
c. price discounts give large volume retailers an advantage over small volume retailers
d. price discounts unfairly target urban areas and price discounts give large volume retailers an advantage over
small volume retailers
e. price discounts injure competition and price discounts give large volume retailers an advantage over small
volume retailers
265. Under the Robinson-Patman Act, a producer may not be able to charge one retailer a lower price than it charges
another retailer just because the first retailer buys more merchandise. Volume discounts can be a violation of the
Robinson-Patman because, according to the law:
a. price discounts injures low-income consumers
b. price discounts unfairly target urban areas
c. price discounts give large volume retailers an advantage over small volume retailers
d. price discounts unfairly target urban areas and price discounts give large volume retailers an advantage over
small volume retailers
e. price discounts injures low-income consumers and price discounts give large volume retailers an advantage
over small volume retailers
266. In Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber, where Weyerhaeuser was accused of buying up all the
raw timber to drive out a competitor, the Supreme Court held Weyerhaeuser was:
a. guilty of a tie-in sale
b. guilty of exclusive dealing
c. guilty of price discrimination
d. guilty of a boycott
e. none of the other choices
267. In Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber, where Weyerhaeuser was accused of predatory bidding
for raw timber to drive out a competitor, the Supreme Court held Weyerhaeuser was:
a. not guilty because predatory bidding does not the violate Robinson-Patman Act, predatory pricing does
b. not guilty as there was no evidence it used its bidding power to raise output prices
c. guilty as its market share increased to 65 percent, which was evidence of monopolistic impact d.
guilty as it raised prices of output after it drove out the competition by buying most of the inputs e.
none of the other choices
268. In Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber, where Weyerhaeuser was accused of predatory bidding
for raw timber to drive out a competitor, the Supreme Court held Weyerhaeuser was:
a. not guilty because predatory bidding does not the violate Robinson-Patman Act, predatory pricing does
b. not guilty because it was found to be paying the going market price
c. guilty as its market share increased to 65 percent, which was evidence of monopolistic impact d.
guilty as it raised prices of output after it drove out the competition by buying most of the inputs e.
none of the other choices
