Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CHAPTER 50 THE CLAYTON ACT, THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, AND ANTITRUST EXEMPTIONS AND IMMUNITIES ANSWERS TO CHAPTER 50 True-False Multiple Choice 1. F 2. T 3. T 4. F 5. F 6. T 7. T 8. F 9. T 10. T 11. F 12. F 13. T 14. c 15. d 16. c 17. c 18. d 19. b 20. d 21. d 22. a 23. b Short Essay 24. Many tying agreements are prohibited by Section 3 of the Clayton Act. Any agreement that requires a buyer to purchase one product (tied product) from a seller as a condition of purchasing another product prevents the buyer from buying from a seller’s competitor. But note that only agreements that may “substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly” violate the law. 25. In determining the relevant geographic market for purposes of a Section 7 challenge, courts have traditionally asked where the effects of a merger will be "direct and immediate." The relevant geographic market, therefore, may not be as broad as the markets in which the acquiring and acquired firms actually operate or compete. Assume, for instance, that differing competitive factors in Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/30/2010 for the course BUSLAW 301 taught by Professor Abu during the Spring '09 term at Abu Dhabi University.

Page1 / 2


This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online