Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
105. In Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, the Supreme Court held that minimum vertical price fixing controls
(resale price maintenance) would be viewed with a rule of reason.
a. True
b. False
106. In Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, the Supreme Court held that minimum vertical price fixing controls
(resale price maintenance) would be legal if it helped interbrand competition at the expense of intrabrand
competition.
a. True
b. False
107. In Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, the Supreme Court held that minimum vertical price fixing controls
(resale price maintenance) would per se legal.
a. True
b. False
108. O Computers are sold by stores that have suggested retail price lists to follow. Store X always offers the computers
for 20% less than list price. The other stores tell O they will quit carrying its computers if X keeps selling them so
cheaply. O quits selling computers to X, so as to not lose the other stores. This is probably not an antitrust violation.
a. True
b. False
109. A territorial restrictions, such as Pepsi telling its bottlers where they can sell and deliver Pepsi, is per se illegal under
the Clayton Act.
a. True
b. False
110. Vertical non-price restraints, such as territorial restrictions, are reviewed by the courts under a rule of reason
analysis.
a. True
b. False
111. Customer restrictions, a vertical non-price restraint, are reviewed by the courts under a rule of reason analysis.
a. True
b. False
112. Tie-in arrangements are examples of vertical exclusionary (non-price) practices.
a. True
b. False
113. When a seller will sell a product only on the condition that the buyer also purchase a different product is a tie-in
sale.
a. True
b. False
114. The Supreme Court holds that where monopoly power exists, tying arrangements are legal as it helps to reduce
monopoly power.
a. True
b. False
115. If a grocery store has a sale that offers a can of peaches at half price⎯if you buy a can of soup at full price. That is
likely to be an illegal tie-in sale.
a. True
b. False
116. When a company is accused of engaging in an illegal tying arrangement, it must be charged under the Sherman
Act.
a. True
b. False
117. In U.S. Steel v. Fortner Enterprises, involving the tying of the sale of mobile homes to credit for those homes, the
Supreme Court renewed its view that tie-in sales are per se illegal under the antitrust statutes.
a. True
b. False
118. In U.S. Steel v. Fortner Enterprises, where the purchase of mobile homes was tied to financing for them, the
Supreme Court held that this tie-in sale was legal under a rule of reason analysis.
a. True
b. False
119. A tie-in sale is probably per se illegal if the seller has market power in the tying product, the tied and tying products
are separate, and there is evidence of substantial adverse effect in the tied-product market.
a. True
b. False
120. The Vertical Restraint Guidelines by the Justice Department hold that tying sales are not likely to be opposed if
the party using the tactic has less than a 30 percent market share for the tying product.
a. True
b. False
121. The Vertical Restraint Guidelines by the Justice Department hold that tying sales are usually viewed under a rule
of reason approach.
a. True
b. False
122. China's Anti-Monopoly Law is essentially the Sherman Act.
a. True
b. False
123. China's Anti-Monopoly law was used to restrict InBev ownership share of the beer market in China after InBev
merged with Anheuser-Busch.
a. True
b. False
124. In Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., the Supreme Court upheld a business arrangement
devised by Kodak that required independent service organizations to buy all replacement parts from Kodak.
a. True
b. False
125. In Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., the Supreme Court found evidence of an illegal tying
arrangement between product service and the sale of spare parts for Kodak machinery.
a. True
b. False
126. A group conspiracy that prevents the carrying on of business is called a boycott.
a. True
b. False
127. If a wholesaler refuses to do business with a retailer, this is an illegal boycott under the Clayton Act.
a. True
b. False
128. Illegal boycotts may involve manufacturers getting together to tell dealers what to do.
a. True
b. False
129. When horizontal competitors use a boycott to force a change in the nature of vertical business relationships, there is
likely to be an illegal boycott.
a. True
b. False
130. For a manufacturer to sell the same products to different purchasers at different prices is per se illegal under the
Robinson-Patman Act.
a. True
b. False
131. The original reason for the Robinson-Patman Act was to limit the ability of chain stores to offer merchandise at a
lower price than their single-store competitors.
a. True
b. False
132. A seller is said to engage in price discrimination when the same product is sold to different buyers at different
prices.
a. True
b. False
133. Charging different prices in different markets for the same product may violate the Robinson-Patman Act.
a. True
b. False
134. Most cases brought under the Robinson-Patman Act are by private parties.
a. True
b. False
135. Predatory pricing is when a company raises prices and tries to get other sellers to do the same.
a. True
b. False
136. Selling a product at below cost in an effort to get a larger market share may violate the Robinson-Patman Act.
a. True
b. False
137. In the Brooke Group case the Supreme Court held that firms should enforce the Robinson-Patman act by suing
competitors who slash prices too low.
a. True
b. False
138. In Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber the Supreme Court held that Weyerhaeuser was selling
lumber at below cost in an effort to get a larger market share and so violated the Robinson-Patman Act.
a. True
b. False
139. In Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber the Supreme Court held that Weyerhaeuser was
outbidding its competitors to buy raw timber in an effort to get a larger market share and so violated the Robinson-
Patman Act.
a. True
b. False
140. In Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber the Supreme Court held that Weyerhaeuser was
outbidding its competitors to buy raw timber because it was highly efficient in production, so it did not violate the
Robinson-Patman Act.
a. True
b. False
141. Volume discounts are specified by the Robinson-Patman Act as exempt from restrictions on price discrimination.
a. True
b. False
142. If a firm engages in price discrimination, it may defend itself by showing that there is a cost justification for
charging different customers different prices.
a. True
b. False
143. If a firm cuts its price in response to a competitor cutting its price first, that may be a defense of meeting
competition so that it has not violated Robinson-Patman.
a. True
b. False
