Which of the following situations will justify the inference that a price-fixing conspiracy exists?

A) The defendant's parallel pricing behavior stemmed from an implied agreement.
B) Independent business decisions by the defendant led to price parallelism.
C) The defendant was unwilling to relinquish market share by engaging in price competition.
D) The evidence only indicates pure conscious price parallelism by the defendant.

Question

Jametrius Heath · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : A, Explanation :  Courts have consistently held that proof of pure conscious parallelism,standing alone,is not enough to establish a Sherman Act Section 1 violation.Other evidence must be presented to show that the defendants' actions stemmed from an agreement,express or implied,rather than from independent business decisions.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions