Restraint of Trade. Is the United States Such a "Person" as May Sue under Section 7 of the Sherman Act

1940 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 958
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sherman Act ◽  
Restraint Of Trade

The Labor Clauses of the Clayton Act

1924 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 489-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alpheus T. Mason
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Labor Unions ◽  
Trade Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
New Era ◽  
Sherman Act ◽  
The Right ◽  
Trust Law ◽  
Restraint Of Trade

The Supreme Court's decision in the Danbury Hatters' case marked the beginning of a new era in trade-union activity, for laborers well realized that the Sherman act, as interpreted and applied by the court in that case, was a measure with which they would eventually have to reckon. The provision expressly declaring that equity courts may be resorted to in order to restrain violations of the act was an objection in itself, serious enough. But the statute held for laborers a much more vital concern: they also perceived that a strict construction of its provisions might even jeopardize the existence of the trade union itself. Laborers naturally felt very keenly even the suggestion that the Anti-Trust Act might be interpreted in such a manner as to deny to laborers the right to organize, and they undoubtedly believed, and not without a certain justification, that the dissolution of the trade union, as a combination in restraint of trade, would be the probable, if not the necessary, result of the court's decision in the Hatters' case.“Under the interpretation placed upon the Sherman Anti-Trust law by the courts,” Mr. Gompers averred, “it is within the province and within the power of any administration … to begin proceedings to dissolve any labor organization in the United States.” Labor unions exist only “at the suffrance of the Department of Justice.”

YURIDICAL ANALYSIS OF THEORY OF THEORY OF ETHICAL FACILITIES DUTIES LAW COMPETITION COMPETITION IN INDONESIA

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 257
Author(s):  
Nandi Wardhana
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Dominant Firm ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Sherman Act ◽  
Theory Of Theory

Indonesian competition law today requires a renewal of one of them concerning the doctrine of essential facilities duties. The doctrine essential facilities duties is a doctrine imposed on a dominant business actor who has access to essential facilities to provide access for competing business actors to use the facility. Regulation of essential facilities duties are needed to reduce dominance of a dominant firm in a particular market. This study uses a statutory approach, conceptual approach, and a comparative approach between the arrangements in the United States, Europe and Indonesia. The approach is expected to illustrate, harmonize problems arising, and provide better legal protection in the world of business competition. The doctrine essential facilities duties were first applied in the United States and then followed by European countries. The doctrine of essential facilities duties in the United States is based on the sherman act and uses theapproach rule of reason. The doctrine of essential facilities duties in European countries based on EC focuses on refusal to deal. The doctrine of essential facilities duties is explicitly implied in Law No. 5 of 1999. From this study it is concluded that the regulation on essential facilities duties in Law No. 5 of 1999 still can not provide a good legal protection for business competition in Indonesia.

A Review of the Literature on the Antitrust Laws of the United States

1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-25
Author(s):  
Terry Calvani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Price Discrimination ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
States Government ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Restraint Of Trade

The attempt by the United States government to preserve competition and its benefits has produced a succession of legislation, popularly known as the antitrust laws, which began with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. This law prohibits combinations in restraint of trade and monopolization of trade. The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 established a federal agency to enforce antitrust and outlawed “unfair” competition. The Clayton Act, passed in the same year and amended by the Robinson–Patman Act in 1936, forbids price discrimination, mergers, and other actions when judged destructive of competition.These statutes have generated an enormous quantity of litigation and have stimulated a plethora of literature. The following article, written by an expert who teaches and writes in the. field of antitrust, describes the more important works on the subject which, taken together, could constitute a basic collection of antitrust literature for law libraries inside and outside the United Slates.

Mr. Justice White and the Rule of Reason

1951 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert B. Dishman
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Basic Assumptions ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Sherman Act ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
The Common ◽  
Obiter Dictum ◽  
Restraint Of Trade

The “rule of reason” remains after almost forty years the most curious obiter dictum ever indulged in by the Supreme Court of the United States. Mistaken though it was in its basic assumptions, the rule nevertheless persists as the Court's standard for construing the Sherman Act. This is not to say, as some critics have said, that the rule has seriously hampered the Department of Justice in enforcing the antitrust laws. We have it on the authority of Thurman Arnold that without the rule die Sherman Act would be “unworkable … because every combination between two men in business is in some measure a restraint of trade.” The rule, he has said, “has the effect of preventing the antitrust laws from destroying the efficiency of diose combinations that are actually serving, instead of exploiting, the consumer.” The fact remains, however, that in adopting the rule the Court erred in at least two respects: first, in applying a test of reasonableness where in the early cases at least none was called for and, second, in basing that rule on a misunderstanding of the common law. For the first of its sins the Court has been scolded many times; for the second, it has received surprisingly litde criticism.

scholarly journals COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPETITION PROTECTION SYSTEMS IN EUROPEAN UNION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-158
Author(s):  
Goce Galev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Sherman Act ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Protection Systems ◽  
Abuse Of Dominant Position

The origin and basic principles of legislation concerning the restriction, prevention, distortion of competition, as well as the conduct of monopoly companies, and consequently the abuse of dominant position, should be sought in historical legal circumstances. The American and European competition protection systems have a common goal, and both systems seek to protect consumers, the free flow of goods and services on the market, and access to competitors' markets. However, given the different historical and economic-political circumstances, the material and procedural rules that are driving the systems of protection of competition differ significantly in their content, their application and their institutional set-up in general. The basic principles, doctrines, and methods of enforcing US competition law stem from the provisions of three legislative acts that, while broadly and broadly formulated, still contribute to the regulation of actions that restrict competition and illicit market monopolization. Namely, these are the Sherman Act passed in 1890, the Clayton Act and the law regulating the work of the Federal Trade Commission passed in 1914. At first glance, there seems to be a great similarity between Community competition law and that of the United States of America. However, a detailed analysis shows that Article 81 of Treaty of Rome, which prohibits agreements that prevent, restrict and distort competition and, consequently, price-fixing agreements and the first part of the Sherman Act, which prohibits trade restrictive agreements are almost incomparable. The same is true of Article 82, which prohibits abuse of dominant position and Article 2 of Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization and the attempts to monopolize.The purpose of this paper is primarily to illustrate the differences, similarities of these two systems. The reason for this, lies in trying to determine how and to what extent economic and legal circumstances affect the choice of the system of protection of competition and, consequently, legal provisions and their application.

The United States Wine Industry: Restraint of Trade and the Religious Right

2001 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 43-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles R. Britton ◽  
Richard K. Ford ◽  
David E.R. Gay
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Right ◽  
Wine Industry ◽  
Restraint Of Trade

A New Look at the Jurisdiction in ALCOA

1967 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 558-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Raymond
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Adverse Effect ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sherman Act ◽  
Aluminum Company ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
Foreign Corporations ◽  
American Party ◽  
First Time ◽  
Foreign Corporation

One of the best-known antitrust decisions in the last quarter of a century is United States v. Aluminum Company of America et al., now usually referred to as the ALCOA case. Although the Sherman Act had for some time been given an extraterritorial application when American corporations were involved, the novelty of ALCOA was that the decision, written by that eminent jurist, Judge Learned Hand, for the first time interpreted our antitrust laws as rendering illegal contracts of a foreign corporation which were made abroad with other foreign corporations and which related to business carried on and to acts to be performed abroad. No American party was involved, and no act took place in the United States, in the part of the case that is here to be considered. Jurisdiction was claimed merely on the basis of an adverse “effect” on our foreign and domestic commerce.

Monopolization and Price Fixing—Good Cases Making Bad Law; Australian-United States Parallels and a Suggested Solution

1981 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 308-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Ransom
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sherman Act ◽  
Restrictive Trade

The Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 (Cth) was modelled closely on the United States Sherman Act. Early United States criminal monopolization cases were not very successful, and the statutory language was read down by a judiciary oriented toward common law contract analysis. The same thing is happening in current Australian cases. One of the finest monopolization opinions ever written is that of Mr Justice Isaacs in the 1911 Coal Vend case. It should be resurrected and used as the foundation for the development of Australian restrictive trade practices law.

American Concerns

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Kenneth Galbraith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Alexander Hamilton ◽  
Thorstein Veblen ◽  
Nineteenth Century America ◽  
Classical Economics ◽  
Herbert Spencer ◽  
Sherman Act ◽  
The Social ◽  
Antitrust Legislation

This chapter examines the American preoccupation with money. While there was little concern in the United States for the central themes of classical economics or for the Marxian and other forms of criticism against it, there was an intense discussion of various practical economic topics such as tariffs, monopolies, and questions relating to money. The chapter first considers the debate over tariffs and tariff protection in nineteenth-century America involving figures such as Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and Henry Carey before discussing issues pertaining to trade, monopolies, trusts, and competition. In particular, it looks at the Sherman Act and other antitrust legislation. It also analyzes the Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer that provided a defense of the classical ideas in the United States. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the contributions of Henry George and Thorstein Veblen to the debate on classical economics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document