The Sherman Act of 1890 - Anti-Trust Laws

...

Question Three

On the way forward, it would be in order if the court decided in favour of the bar association herein the defendants. This is because inasmuch as the defendants may have infringed on the rights of the plaintiffs, the defendants move was not intended to control the market or monopolize the bar business in the area. Further, the bar owners association was only but reacting to the public outcry over excessive drinking in the area by university students. It is indeed true that they conspired to control the price in some way but the defendants had no intention to raise their rates for their own advantage. Actually they would sell more with the uninterrupted supply of alcohol to their customers but their decision to ration was not in their favour. It is therefore fair to the defendants if the court could allow their decision to tame and control consumption of alcohol which was against public opinion. The Sherman Act prohibits agreements to control the market, agreements to fix prices and lastly agreements to give regional share to individual companies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is common knowledge that traders may come up with ways to remain competitive in a certain market. Instances whereby companies agree to set a specific price for their same goods are not new in the world of trade. Agreements to divide markets among different companies have also been seen and it is great to have laws governing competition. However, inasmuch as there are high chances of breaking anti-trust laws, not every act should be made a subject of an offense as there are acts that if looked at from different angles would not amount to violations of the laws governing competition in the world of trade.

Works cited

The Sherman Act of 1890