Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Product
B) Consumer
C) Offered
D) Utilized
E) Disputed
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice can bring criminal or civil actions against violators.
B) If a corporation commits a crime under the Sherman Act, the corporation could face a $10 million fine for each offense.
C) Officers and employees who are convicted under the Sherman Act face a maximum fine of $350,000 and/or jail time of up to three years.
D) If a party is harmed by a company's anticompetitive behavior, the party can bring a private suit under the Sherman Act.
E) Treble damages are not available under the Sherman Act.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Yes, they violated Section 1.
B) Yes, they violated Section 2.
C) No, there is no violation because they are not engaged in intrastate commerce.
D) No, there is no violation because they have not established a monopoly.
E) No, there is no violation because at least three businesses must be involved in order to establish a violation of the Sherman Act.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) It was passed when Congress passed the Clayton Act.
B) It prohibits unfair and deceptive methods of competition.
C) Any anticompetitive behavior not prohibited by the Sherman Act or the Clayton Act is illegal under the act.
D) The language of the act permits the Federal Trade Commission to investigate antitrust claims.
E) While the language of the act permits the Federal Trade Commission to investigate antitrust claims, it may not bring antitrust claims against violators.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) A violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
B) A violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act
C) A violation of the Business Regulation Act
D) A violation of the Robinson-Patman Act
E) A violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, but not a violation of the Business Regulation.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The rule-of-reason analysis
B) The per se test
C) The quick-look standard
D) The consumer standard
E) The three-prong analysis
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The court ruled that the agreement was legal because it came within the non-statutory labor exemption to antitrust laws.
B) The court ruled that the agreement was legal because it came within the statutory labor exemption to antitrust laws.
C) The court ruled that the revenue-sharing agreement was not immune from antitrust scrutiny.
D) The court ruled that because the revenue-sharing agreement was not within the non-statutory exemption to antitrust laws, it was illegal as a matter of law with no further inquiry necessary.
E) The court ruled that although the agreement came within the statutory exemption to antitrust laws, additional inquiry was needed in order to determine whether the agreement constituted a per se violation which is illegal even in the face of an exemption.
Correct Answer
verified
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Multiple Choice
A) Horizontal
B) Vertical
C) Conglomerate
D) Joining
E) Predatory
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) 1887
B) 1920
C) 1934
D) 1945
E) 1964
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The court ruled that Microsoft violated both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
B) The court ruled that Microsoft violated neither Section 1 nor Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
C) The court ruled that Microsoft violated Section 1 but not Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
D) The court ruled that Microsoft violated Section 2 but not Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
E) The court ruled that Microsoft violated both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act but that because the U.S. Department of Justice "sat on its rights" and delayed prosecution, the suit was subject to dismissal.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Horizontal
B) Vertical
C) Conglomerate
D) Joining
E) Predatory
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Through its authority to regulate interstate commerce.
B) Through its authority to prevent discrimination.
C) Through its authority under the First Amendment.
D) Through its authority under the Fourth Amendment.
E) Pursuant to the due process clause contained in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Both territorial and customer restrictions are generally analyzed under the rule-of-reason test.
B) Both territorial and customer restrictions are generally analyzed on a per se basis.
C) Territorial restrictions are analyzed under the rule-of-reason test, while customer restrictions are analyzed on a per se basis.
D) Customer restrictions are analyzed under the rule-of-reason test, while territorial restrictions are analyzed on a per se basis.
E) Neither territorial nor customer restrictions are analyzed on any basis because both have been ruled legal in all cases.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Allocated
B) Consumer
C) Market
D) Presumed
E) Allowable
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The court ruled that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could determine that the defendant was guilty of predatory pricing thereby entitling the plaintiff to prevail.
B) The court ruled that although there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could determine that the defendant was guilty of predatory pricing, the defendant was entitled to a summary judgment ruling in its favor because the plaintiff failed to establish that it could have succeeded in the market absent the defendant's predatory pricing.
C) That there was insufficient evidence from which to determine that the defendant was guilty of predatory pricing and that summary judgment was therefore properly granted to it.
D) That although there was insufficient evidence from which to determine that the defendant was guilty of predatory pricing, a jury trial was mandated because the defendant was guilty of attempted monopolization.
E) That although there was insufficient evidence from which to determine that the defendant was guilty of predatory pricing, a jury trial was mandated because the defendant was guilty of inequitable conduct.
Correct Answer
verified
Showing 21 - 40 of 65
Related Exams