BRG and BARMAX Illegally Monopolize Market in Georgia - Essay Sample

Introduction

Two companies, BRG of Georgia and BARMAX, entered an agreement of market sharing, and non-interference BRG decided to triple the price for its course to more than $400 from $150. The conduct is illegal under the federal antitrust laws regarding business competition because both companies are involved in a conspiracy to monopolize the Georgia market and therefore charge more for their course without fear of losing the market share to competitors. The Sherman Act outlaws any contract or agreement that allows for the restraint of trade or monopolization of a market hence making the agreement between BRG of Georgia and BARMAX illegal (Dickens, 2016, p127). The two companies had plain arrangements to divide markets within and without Georgia, and from the scenario, it is clear that they conspired to fix prices immediately after the agreement.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Such restraint of trade is considered unreasonable because it is to the disadvantage and exploitation of their customers who are students. Enforcement of the Sherman act involves persecution for intentional fixing of prices, such as the tripling of prices as witnessed with BRG after their agreement with BARMAX. The Clayton act also prohibits in more specific ways practices that lessen competition in markets and industries as this lowers the quality and raises the price of products in a market. The federal trade commission act bans unfair and deceptive practices, and methods of competition and violation of the Sherman Act also violates the federal trade commission act. The two companies are in violation by engaging in questionable practices such as allocation of markets within and without Georgia between themselves. In 2001 the federal trade commission found FMC Corp. guilty of conspiring with the Asahi chemical industry to divide their market for microcrystalline cellulose. Apple had also lost an appeal and was found guilty by the department of justice for fixing the prices of eBooks, paying $450 million in damages.

A case involving standard oil involved the United State Government went after the company for being in violation of the Sherman act. The company had monopolized the market, and the government broke it into 34 separate companies so as to ensure consumer welfare and protect competitors against manipulation of the market stemming from corporate selfishness. The horizontal merger between BRG of Georgia and BARMAX aims at monopolizing the market, dividing it, and eventually fixing prices instead of letting it be dictated by market forces. A case relating to this scenario involves Bell Atlantic corporation versus Twombly, which was decided on May 21, 2007. The Twombly plaintiffs filed a complaint against a group of former Bell exchange carriers who had agreed not to compete against each other in their respective service areas as well as to prevent competitive entry. Such parallel conduct push for antitrust conspiracies. The case was ruled out for lacking factual evidence relating to the agreement under section 1 claim of the Sherman act.

Administrative Agencies and Ethics

There indeed exist legal and ethical barriers to the relationship between Brian Day and Jenice Brown. Corporate officers, as well as members of administrative agencies who are involved in reviewing applications or regulating corporate activity, cannot be in a relationship because this would bring bias and conflict of interest. The ties would lead the director for licensing approval of new products to abuse professional integrity and the rule of law based on personal entanglements. The administrative procedure act requires agencies to be accountable for their rulemaking and other government functions (Gray & Thorpe, 2015, p65). Legally members of an administrative agency are bound to adhere to specific guidelines, and this may put Ms. Brown in a dilemma whether to act lawfully or favor Mr. Day considering they get into a relationship. The ethics framework is a guide for members of the administrative agencies that ensures that they discharge their duties in morally right ways that also conform with the law.

The ethical obligation requires Ms. Brown not to get involved with a corporate officer as this would affect the way she performs her duties and cause impartiality in the approval process (Frederickson, 2019, p71). Laws that touch on conflict of interest may make an employee liable for prosecution if it is found that they participated in activities with which they had s conflict of interest and may have interfered with the legal way of doing things. It may also lead to the disqualification of the approval of a license to Future electronics. Constitutional values require members of administrative agencies to adhere to laws that define their responsibilities and roles. A case involving undue influence touches on ethics and interpersonal relationships. One example includes Schomberg v Taylor's case whereby after Mrs. Taylor changed her will to favor the two steps sons they had to go to court to prove that the will was not changed without enough thought to the consequences.

Mr. Day should decline the invitation to go to Washington for the visit because it would interfere with the company's request for the approval of the new satellite device. Meeting with the member of the administrative agency would be seen as a form of undue influence to doctor the application proposal. Even if Future electronics gets approved in the right way, the relationship may legally bring issues for the company if the competitors come to find out because it is assumed that acting objectively on moral grounds becomes challenging when emotional intimacies are involved. As the legal counsel for Future Electronics, I would advise Mr. Day to postpone his visit to Washington until a decision is made on the company's application for approval of the new satellite device.

References

Frederickson, H. G., & Walling, J. D. (2019). Research and knowledge in administrative ethics. In Handbook of administrative ethics (pp. 63-84). Routledge.

Dickens, B. M. (2016). Legal and ethical issues of uterus transplantation. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 133(1), 125-128.

Gray, E. A., & Thorpe, J. H. (2015). Comparative effectiveness research and big data: balancing potential with legal and ethical considerations. Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 4(1), 61-74.