In CASE 16

In CASE 16.1 Leegin Creative Leather Products,Inc.v.PSKS,Inc.(2007) ,Leegin instituted a retail pricing and promotion policy and refused to sell to retailers that discounted Brighton goods below Leegin's suggested retail prices.PSKS sued Leegin,alleging that Leegin had violated the antitrust laws by "enter[ing] into agreements with retailers to charge only those prices fixed by Leegin." The court agreed with PSKS that it is per se illegal for a manufacturer to agree with its distributor to set the minimum price that the distributor can charge for the manufacturer's goods.The appeal of this decision involved a question of whether _____ should be analyzed under the _____.

A) resale price maintenance agreements; rule of reason
B) a horizontal conspiracy; per se rule
C) conglomerate mergers; per se rule
D) a vertical conspiracy; rule of reason

Correct Answer:

Verified

Unlock this answer now
Get Access to more Verified Answers free of charge

Access For Free