Paper , Order, or Assignment Requirements
Business law 1 Assignment ALL ANSWERS MUST BE IN 11 FONT Before you begin answer the following question Answer the following Business Scenarios: 32-1 32-3 32-6 Answer all three with full, substantive essay style answers. If you use any sources other then your text book, you must use a reference (APA) a least 1 for each case problem. Students must also complete Business Scenarios and Case Problems Before you begin answer the following question in 1 to 2 paragraphs What are the major provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton act? What is the difference between the two acts? How did one lead to the other? Do you feel the government should regulate those who form monopolies and restrict competition? Or should it be left up to the market? 32 – 1 Sherman Act. An agreement that is blatantly and substantially anticompetitive is deemed a per se violation of Section I of the Sherman Act. Under what rule is an agreement analyzed if It appears to be anticompetitive but is not a per se violation? In making this analysis, what factors Will a court consider? 32 – 3 Tying Arrangement. John Sheridan owned a Marathon gas station franchise. He sued Marathon Petroleum Co. under Section I of the Sherman and Section 3 of the Clayton Act, charging it with illegally tying the processing of credit-card sales to the gas station. As a condition of obtaining a Marathon dealership, dealers had to agree to let the franchisor process credit cards. They could not shop around to see if credit-card processing could be obtained at a lower price from another source. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. Sheridan appealed. Is there a tying arrangement? If so, does it violate the law? [Sheridan v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 530 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2008)] 32 – 6 Price Discrimination. Dayton Superior Corp. sells its products In Interstate commerce to several companies, Including Spa Steel Products, Inc. The purchasers often compete directly each other for customers. From 2005 to 2007, one of Spa Steel’s customers purchased Dayton Superior’s products from two of Spa Steel’s competitors. According to the customer, Spa Steel’s prices were always 10 to 15 percent higher even though they were for the same products. As a result, Spa Steel lost sales to at least that customer and perhaps others. Spa Steel wants to sue Dayton Superior for price discrimination. Which requirements for such a claim under Section 2 of the Clayton Act does Spa Steel satisfy? What additional facts it need to prove? [Dayton Superior Corp. v. Spa Steel Products, Inc., 2012 WL 113663 (N.D.N.Y 2012)] 13 – 4 Assignments. Senna Hills, Ltd., granted Southern Union Co. the right to distribute propane in a residential subdivision developed by Senna in exchange for a fee. Under their agreement, Senna’s “right to receive a Fee shall continue for so long as the Propane System is owned by Southern Union.’ The agreement also allowed Southern Union to assign the distribution right. Later, Sonterra Energy Corp. bought the distribution system and was assigned the distribution right, but did not pay the fee to Senna. Did Sonterra breach the propane service agreement? Why or why not?