Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
17th Edition
ISBN: 9781337094757
Author: Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts
Publisher: Cengage Learning
Question
Book Icon
Chapter 13, Problem 5Q
Summary Introduction

Given situation:

This case is relating to the concept of common law restraint of trade. Since the public benefits from robust free competition, contracts that limit trade unreasonably are illegal.

To discuss: The court should enjoin the contrary agreement of manufacturing machines.

Blurred answer
Students have asked these similar questions
True or False 1. The power to borrow or obtain a loan is one of the enumerated corporate powers under the Code, it is really an inherent or implied power of every corporation since it flows from its being granted the capacity to contract or to obligate itself as a juridical person under Article 46 of the Civil Code. In addition, the express powers to enter into the accessory contracts of "pledge" or "mortgage" under Section 35(g), must necessary include the power to enter into the accessory contract of loan 2.Cash dividends are declared by the majority of the quorum of the board of directors with the concurrence of the stockholders representing at least 2/3 of the outstanding capital stock 3.It is a well-established principle that the contents of the bylaws that contravene the Constitution and the laws of the land are deemed void; and that in case of contradiction to any of the provisions of the articles of incorporation, the By-Laws' provision/s shall prevail 4.The Supreme Court…
Moore ran a bakery in Santa Rosa, New Mexico. His business was wholly intrastate. Meads Fine Bread Co., his competitor, engaged in an interstate business. Meads cut the price of bread in half in Santa Rosa but made no price cut in any other place in New Mexico or in any other state. This price-cutting drove Moore out of business. Moore then sued Meads for damages for violating the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts. Meads claimed that the price-cutting was purely intrastate and, therefore, did not constitute a violation of federal statutes. Was Meads correct? Why or why not?
Baker entered into an oral agreement with Healey, the State distributor of Ballantine & Sons liquor products, that Ballantine would supply Baker with its products on demand and that Baker would have the exclusive agency for Ballantine within a certain area of Connecticut. Shortly thereafter the agreement was modified to give Baker the right to terminate at will. Eight months later, Ballantine & Sons revoked its agency. May Baker enforce the oral agreement? Explain.
Knowledge Booster
Background pattern image
Similar questions
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
Recommended textbooks for you
Text book image
Understanding Business
Management
ISBN:9781259929434
Author:William Nickels
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Text book image
Management (14th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134527604
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter
Publisher:PEARSON
Text book image
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...
Management
ISBN:9781305947412
Author:Cliff Ragsdale
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Text book image
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...
Management
ISBN:9780135191798
Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. Laudon
Publisher:PEARSON
Text book image
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...
Management
ISBN:9780134728391
Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. Griffin
Publisher:PEARSON
Text book image
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134237473
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo
Publisher:PEARSON