× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
e
5
e
4
4
d
4
o
3
p
3
t
3
3
m
3
p
3
m
3
f
3
Home Q & A Board Humanities Legal Studies
New Topic  
Valentine11 Valentine11
wrote...
Go to Answer
Posts: 556
Rep: 0 0
6 years ago
In U.S. v. Trenton Potteries Co, competitors openly fixed prices and restrained sales. The Supreme Court held that:
 a. Section 2 of the Clayton Act was unconstitutional b. price fixing is per se illegal
  c. cartels that serve to lower consumer prices may be legal
  d. as a potters association they were exempt from the antitrust laws e. horizontal groupings that do not involve mergers are not illegal
Read 34 times
1 Reply
Replies
Answer verified by a subject expert
tdubb1992tdubb1992
wrote...
#1
Top Poster
Posts: 1171
Rep: 10 0
6 years ago
Sign in or Sign up in seconds to unlock everything for free
1

Related Topics

Valentine11 Author
wrote...

6 years ago
You make an excellent tutor!
homework1
wrote...

Yesterday
I appreciate what you did here, answered it right Smiling Face with Open Mouth
Zacellison
wrote...

2 hours ago
Smart ... Thanks!
New Topic      
Quick Reply
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  990 People Browsing
Start New Topic Take the Tour CoursesNew Study Tools Topics Trending Browse by Textbook
Live Chat
Related Images
  
 142
  
 129
  
 241
Your Opinion
Do you believe in global warming?
Votes: 395
Previous poll results: Should Ph.D.'s be addressed as doctors?