Essay on Improper Bargaining
Issue: The issue is the possible agreement between parties concerning their pricing policies after their partnership has come to the end, since the agreement between the parties implies that they ex-partners will coordinate and agree their accounting policies for the year after the end of the partnership.
Rule: the rule of reason
Rule explanation: the rule of reason is the anti-trust law that aim at the prevention of price fixing and monopolization of the market, when such actions threaten to unreasonably restrain trade.
Application: In case of partners, who have agreed to end up their partnership, there is the intention to fix price and maintain their monopolistic position in the Chicago area for a year. Therefore, the rule of reason can be applied to this case, even though partners limit their agreement by one year. In fact, the problem is that they attempt to fix prices and restrain trade in their industry by coordinating their pricing policies. In such a way, ex-partners virtually receive an effective tool, which they can use to maintain their monopolistic position in the market. There is no reason for such prolonged agreement on common accounting of ex-partners because their partnership has come to the end. Hence, partners are trying to breach the anti-trust law and the rule of reason should be applied to them.
Conclusion: Thus, the case reveals the fact that the rule of reason is very important because one and the same policy may be interpreted in different ways. For example, the policy conducted by ex-partners would be reasonable and did not raise the issue of the violation of the anti-trust law but, after the end of their partnership such policies are unacceptable and liable to the rule of reason provisions.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...