Contract Combination Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade
Prohibited Conduct Under the Sherman Act
If you still have questions or prefer to get help directly from an agent, please submit a request.
We’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
- Marketing, Advertising, Sales & PR
- Accounting, Taxation, and Reporting
- Professionalism & Career Development
Law, Transactions, & Risk Management
Government, Legal System, Administrative Law, & Constitutional Law Legal Disputes - Civil & Criminal Law Agency Law HR, Employment, Labor, & Discrimination Business Entities, Corporate Governance & Ownership Business Transactions, Antitrust, & Securities Law Real Estate, Personal, & Intellectual Property Commercial Law: Contract, Payments, Security Interests, & Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Insurance & Risk Management Immigration Law Environmental Protection Law Inheritance, Estates, and Trusts
- Business Management & Operations
- Economics, Finance, & Analytics
Table of ContentsWhat is the SHERMAN ACT?What is a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade?Discussion QuestionAcademic Research
What is the SHERMAN ACT?
The Sherman Act prevents certain contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce, and industry monopolies and attempts to monopolize. The following are the basic concepts behind the Sherman Act.
Next Article: The Rule of Reason & Per Se Illegality Back to: ANTITRUST LAW
What is a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade?
Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce, but it does not define these types of agreements. Common law surrounding the Sherman Act identifies numerous forms of concerted actions between market competitors or members of the value chain that have the intent or effect of restraining trade in the relevant product or service market. These relationships are generally broken into vertical restraints and horizontal restraints of trade. The various types of vertical and horizontal trade are discussed individually.
Note: While these above definitions appear to be broad, interdependent or independent activity is not a restraint of trade and will not give rise to a cause of action under Section 1.
What common element do you see among each type of prohibited conduct? Do each of these activities demonstrate the same company intent? Does prohibiting each of these activities seem to serve the same objective?