Can Soler, Veïnat de Rocabruna, Camprodon (Girona)

(+34) 646487966 rourevell@gmail.com

Agreements That Are Deemed Per Se Violations Of Section 1

3. Communication with the counsellor. Each real estate company should have access to competent legal advisors. If the company`s corporate advisor does not have expertise in cartels and abuse of dominance, the advisor should be asked to identify other consultants to consult on the legal issues of the agreements. Legal advice on cartels and abuse of dominance should be sought if the company is considering adjusting its commission rates, the commissions paid to cooperating companies or whether it is considering implementing a business strategy that could affect its competitor. More than 100 years ago, Congress passed the Sherman Act as the basis for federal agreement law. Virtually all federal litigation has one or more violations of the Sherman Act. Section 1 of the Sherman Act simply states: A. Price information No one should be surprised that the price charged by competitors is important information for a businessman. That`s the nature of the competition. Learning what competitors are asking for can be competitive, as it allows the market player to get closer to the information that would be available in a market that works perfectly.

Clearly eligible actions include: Per Se / Quick Look / Rule of Reason: This is actually the whole ball game. The problem is that the courts are reluctant to oppose a violation of the rules on cartels and abuse of dominance. Many courts claim that they are not entitled to find an offence per se, unless the Supreme Court has so far considered (and recently) the conduct at issue as a violation in itself. But this is not a true statement of the law. Take a factory worker worth $10 an hour who is subject to a non-compete agreement. I say it is illegal in itself. There is no pro-competition justification. This non-competition agreement is used to reduce competition in the labour market, to limit the mobility of workers and – ultimately, to eliminate wages. This kind of restraint is clearly harmful and illegal. The restrictions themselves analyzed are those that are always (or almost always) so anti-competitive and market-damaging that they justify a conviction without their impact on the market or the existence of an objective justification for competition being further investigated. (U.S. v Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S.

150 (1940); United States: Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (1967); United States: Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (1972); Craftsmen Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 363 F.3d 761 (8 cir. 2004); U.S. Dep`t of Justice and Federal Trade Comm`n, Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors from April 2000 (Section 3.2). The U.S.

Supreme Court has held that self-regulation of the industry through codes of ethics is a legitimate function of the trade association as long as the code can be shown to promote competition by improving the efficiency or efficiency of the industry. At the same time, the ethical codes of the sector can and are used to condemn or curb the practices of particularly successful or creative competitors in order to withstand the threat of competition from these competitors.