Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Anti trust laws
Antitrust laws are a collection of federal and state laws that regulate the business practices of large companies in order to promote and protect fair competition within an open-market economy. These laws prevent businesses from taking part in unfair business activities such as, but not limited to, price fixing, market allocation, and bid rigging. Price fixing is when two or more competitors agree to each charge the same price for a product and not undercut each other. Market allocation is when competitors agree to divide markets among themselves, you stay out of my territory and I’ll stay out of yours. Bid rigging is when several businesses within a market agree to take turns winning and losing bids in order to maintain market control and prevent competition. As you can imagine, these unlawful business …show more content…
The Sherman Act made it illegal for competitors to make agreements that would limit competition, this law also made it illegal for a business to operate as a monopoly if that business is not competing fairly. The Sherman Act succeeded in breaking up trusts but as business practices in America began to change companies found a new way to control price and production. Rather than forming trusts, competitors would unite into a single company, this new strategy to control price and production is called merging. Congress passed The Clayton Act in 1914 in order to combat this new business strategy, The Clayton Act helps protect consumers by banning mergers that are likely to significantly decrease competition. Also in 1914, Congress enacted the Federal Trade Commision Act (FTC) which created a federal agency to watchover markets and prevent unfair business practices from taking place. The FTC has the authority to investigate and stop unfair competition strategies and deceptive practices. Although these laws were enacted a long time ago, they continue to protect consumers and market
Unfortunately, these monopolies allowed companies to raise prices without consequence, as there was no other source of product for consumers to buy for cheaper. The more competition, the more a company is forced to appeal to the consumer, but monopolies allowed corporations to treat consumers awfully and still receive their business. Trusts were bad for both the consumers and the workers, but without proper representation, they could do nothing. However, with petitions, citizens got the first anti-trust law passed by the not entirely corrupt Congress, called the Sherman Act of 1890. It prevented companies from trade cooperation of any kind, whether good or bad. Most corporate lawyers were able to find loopholes in the law, and it was largely ineffective. Over time, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, and the previously passed Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, which regulated railroad rates, grew more slightly effective, but it would take more to cripple powerful
Since this debate still rages on, many people argue both sides of the story of the pros and cons. Many would argue that not breaking up monopolies actually increase the competition of companies that are attempting to break into some of the market share that the monopoly already has, more so than the free market that exists now. Proponents of the Sherman Anti-Trust act argue that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Martin, 1996) as originally quoted by Baron Acton. The idea that no competition within the business world establishes no risk and reward that is all part of the entrepreneur spirit of the U.S. spirit.
Before a series of antitrust acts and laws were instituted by the federal government, it was not illegal for businesses to use any means to eliminate competition in late nineteenth-century America. Production technology was now advanced to the point that supply would surpass product demand. As competition in any given market increased, more and more companies joined together in either trusts or holding companies to bring market dominance under their control (Cengage 2). As President Theodore Roosevelt was sworn into office in 1901, he led America into action with forceful government solutions (“Online” 1). Roosevelt effectively regulated offending business giants by the formation of the Department of Commerce and Labor, the Bureau of Corporations, and antitrust lawsuits.
The Sherman Act outlaws every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade. It also prohibits any attempt to monopolize. The Sherman Act enforcement can be civil or criminal. The criminal penalty can be up to $1 million for an individual and $100 million for a corporation. The Federal Trade Commission Act bans unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts or practices. Violation of Sherman Act also violates Federal Trade Commission Act. The Sherman Act and Federal Trade Commission Act are very effective, but they do not address certain specific practices. The Clayton Act addresses some specific practices such as mergers and interlocking directorates. For example, Section 7 of Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions that lessen competition or tend to create monopoly. Apart from these three core antitrust acts, most states also have antitrust laws. (FTC, 2014)
Many businesses used this new process to raise the price of their competitors. They did this by putting constraints on entry restrictions (Woods 1986). At the state level, other laws were put in place to support the Food and Drug Act mainly to help local and area producers who were and would be facing new nat...
middle of paper ... ... Also, some railroads gave special rates to some shippers in exchange that the shippers continued doing business with the railroad company. In the Clayton Antitrust Act, it said no one in commerce could regulate rates of price between different buyers (Document E). It said that otherwise, this would create a monopoly in any line of commerce. However, the Elkins Act of 1903 pushed heavy fines on the companies that did that.
Anti-trust laws are laws which prohibit anti-competitive behavior and unfair business practices. Their purpose is to make sure that businesses and consumers cannot be abused by powerful firms that hold or wish to hold a monopoly in the market. They also take into account certain ethical standards, and therefore can be considered quite subjective. Many specific strategies are outlawed by anti-trust laws, including price fixing (agreement on prices of uniform goods or services), predatory pricing (setting a low price in order to knock off competitors), and vendor lock-in (virtually forcing a consumer to buy from a certain supplier).
9. Sherman Anti-Trust Act – 1890 – forbade combinations in restraint of trade, without any distinction between “good” and “bad” trusts.
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was an early attempt to try to control abuses by large combinations of businesses called trusts. The Act was weakened by the Supreme Court used against labor unions rather than against monopolies. Roosevelt’s first push for reform on the national level began with a secret antitrust investigation of the J. P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Company whom monopolized railroad traffic. After successfully using his powers in government to control businesses, Roosevelt used the Sherman Antitrust Act against forty-three “bad” trusts that broke the law and left the “good” trusts alone.
Anti-Trust policy of 1902 pledged government intervention to break up illegal monopolies and regulate corporations for
When it comes to contracts, there are certain elements or requirements, which need to be met in order for the contract to be valid. Defined, a contract is “an agreement that can be enforced in a court; formed by two or more parties who agree to perform or refrain from performing some act now or in the future” (Hollowell & Miller, 2014, p. 110). With contract law, there is the enforcement of promises made between two parties, even if made in private. Additionally if a promise is made, there is the possibility of the obligation falling into a moral liability rather than a legal liability. All in all, when it comes to business agreements, contract laws will apply to avoid any possible problems that may arise.
Competition law in the European Union has developed from being an uncertain preoccupation of a few economists, lawyers and officials to one of the leading competition law system in the globe. Nonetheless, in agreement with most commentators, there are inherent flaws within the EU Commission’s procedures. This paper aims to provide an account of concerns in the current system, drawing comments from scholars and EU officials in order to demonstrate both benefits and shortcomings of the system. An overview of the legal and policy debate of the current EU Competition enforcement will be presented as the introduction. Policy concerns such as prosecutorial bias and self-incrimination in enforcement powers will be the main subjects for the purpose of this paper, followed by analysis of the EU commission structure, in particular checks and balances and the hearing process, both of which have been claimed being incompatible with the ECHR. A comparison with the US Antitrust system will also be paralleled through out this essay in order to demonstrate a clearer examination. This essay will conclude with the Commission’s flaws that have effected on the upcoming UK competition law reforms.
Predatory pricing “is alleged to occur when a firm sets a price for its product that is below some measure of cost and forfeits revenues in the short run to put competitors out of business” (Sheffet p.163-164). The reason firms take the short term loss is because they hope to drive out competitors and raise prices to monopolistic levels. By doing this, they covered their short term loss to make even greater profits in the long term than they would have by not using predatory tactics (Sheffert). Predatory pricing became illegal under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. It has remained one of the more difficult allegations for prosecutors to prove, due to the complexity of determining the company’s actual intent and whether or not it the strategy is competitive pricing. According to Areeda and Turner, there are three ways to determine if a firm is implementing predatory pricing. First, a price above marginal cost is presumed lawful; second, a price below marginal cost is considered unlawful, except when there is strong demand; and third, average variable cost is considered a good proxy for marginal cost. This is a reason predatory pricing is still important today. The courts must decide whether or not companies are engaging in competitive prices for the good of the consumers or are using predatory tactics for the good of their own company. The purpose of this paper is to focus on the current legislation regarding predatory pricing, determining when there is predation in an industry and the cause and effect relationship it has on an industry.
...ur; in such cases, competition authorities must act to fight unlawful practices that are detrimental for the economic welfare.
Free trade and fair trade advocates have very different ideologies and there are several different generalizations that can be made. Because of differences in political outlook, there are always debates within national legislatures. Free trade advocates are commonly conservative or libertarian who support smaller government and less regulation. This generally leads them to be disbelieving of government programs that attempt to redistribute wealth. Fair trade advocates on the other hand generally have a communitarian outlook that is more inclined to supporting government action with improving people’s quality of life (Gillikin, J). Through an economical lense, economists accept that free trade provides the least amount of expenses while maintaining