companies regularly charge the same prices, including a minimum price that none of the
three goes below and a maximum price that none of the three goes above. A fourth
producer of knives, Bronco Co., the plaintiff in a Sherman Act Section 1 lawsuit against
Ojay, A-C, and Kato. Bronco claims in the lawsuit that the foregoing facts constituted
price-fixing and that Bronco suffered direct antitrust injury as a result. Assuming that
Bronco is a proper plaintiff, which of the following is an accurate analysis under current
antitrust law?
A. Even if the defendants were involved only in conscious parallelism concerning
pricing policies, they will be held liable under Section 1 because their behavior caused
harm to the plaintiff.
B. If the court believes that the evidence demonstrates an agreement to fix prices, it will
hold the defendants liable under Section 1 regardless of the business justifications for
their agreement.
C. The defendants cannot be held liable under Section 1, because the facts indicate that
they agreed to share pricing information without agreeing to fix prices or making any
agreement to that effect.
D. The defendants should succeed with an argument that they are not liable for any
fixing of maximum prices, because any such price-fixing would have finally benefited
consumers.
Which of the following theories of recovery is likely to be most effective against a
disclaimer of liability?
A. Express warranty
B. Implied warranty of merchantability
C. Implied warranty of fitness
D. Section 402A