The Antitrust Improvements Act of 1986 (Illinois Brick): Hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-ninth Congress, Second Session, on S. 2481 ... June 3, 1986, Volume 4 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
alleged American Bar Association antitrust actions antitrust enforcement antitrust laws antitrust litigation antitrust suits antitrust violations attorneys beef subsector bid-rigging boxed beef BUDEIRI buyers carcass CAVANAGH chain of distribution chainstores CHAIRMAN CHEVRON CORP claims Clayton Act Committee competitive complex complicated concentration CONGRESS LIBRARY CONGRESS THE LIBRARY Connor conspiracy Consumer Remedies Improvement cost defendants deterrence economic effect farm farmers fed cattle Federal feedlots firms food manufacturers Granger movement HALVERSON Hanover Shoe illegal overcharge Illinois Brick Co Illinois Brick decision Illinois Brick rule incentive indirect purchaser suits injury Judge Renfrew Judiciary lawyers legislation LIBRARY OF CONGRES LIBRARY OF CONGRESS livestock producers market power meat packers meatpacking monopsony National Grange NESTLEN oligopolistic oligopoly parens patriae pass pass-on permit plaintiffs price-fixing private antitrust problems purchasers or sellers recover recovery retailers sell Senator HATCH Senator METZENBAUM slaughter Supreme Court Thank tion treble damage action trust laws wholesale
Popular passages
Page 81 - The carrier ought not to be allowed to retain his illegal profit, and the only one who can take it from him is the one that alone was in relation with him, and from whom the carrier took the sum.
Page 81 - The general tendency of the law, in regard to damages at least, is not to go beyond the first step. As it does not attribute remote consequences to a defendant so it holds him liable if proximately the plaintiff has suffered a loss. The plaintiffs suffered losses to the amount of the verdict when they paid. Their claim accrued at once in the theory of the law and it does not inquire into later events...
Page 105 - Screen did not monopolize or attempt to monopolize within the meaning of § 2 of the Sherman Act ; that the plaintiffs were not persons injured in their business or property...
Page 84 - Darnell-Taenzer, of interpreting § 4 in a way that might overcompensate the plaintiff, who had certainly 8 "[T]he impact of a single change in the relevant conditions cannot be measured after the fact; indeed a businessman. may be unable to state whether had one fact been different ... he would have chosen a different price ....". 392 US, at 492.
Page 18 - Antitrust laws in general, and the Sherman Act in particular, are the Magna Carta of free enterprise. They are as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free-enterprise system as the Bill of Rights is to the protection of our fundamental personal freedoms.
Page 84 - A wide range of factors influence a company's pricing policies. Normally the impact of a single change in the relevant conditions cannot be measured after the fact; indeed a businessman may be unable to state whether, had one fact been different (a single supply less expensive, general economic conditions more buoyant, or the labor market tighter, for example) , he would have chosen a different price. Equally difficult to determine, in...
Page 85 - ... had one fact been different (a single supply less expensive, general economic conditions more buoyant, or the labor market tighter, for example), he would have chosen a different price. ! Equally difficult to determine, in the real economic world rather than an economist's hypothetical model, is what effect a change in a company's price will have on its total sales. Finally, costs per unit for a different volume of total sales are hard to estimate. Even if it could be shown that the buyer raised...
Page 81 - ... tendency of the law, in regard to damages, at least, is not to go beyond the first step. As it does not attribute remote consequences to a defendant, so it holds him liable if proximately the plaintiff has suffered a loss. The plaintiffs suffered losses to the amount of the verdict, when they paid. Their claim accrued at once in the theory of the law, and it does not inquire into later events.
Page 8 - I would like to ask that my full statement be included in the record and I will summarize my statement.
Page 85 - ... declined, there would remain the nearly insuperable difficulty of demonstrating that the particular plaintiff could not or would not have raised his prices absent the overcharge or maintained the higher price had the overcharge been discontinued. Since establishing the applicability of the passing-on defense would require a convincing showing of each of these virtually unascertainable figures, the task would normally prove insurmountable.' On the other hand, it is not unlikely that if the existence...