More About Anti-trust Laws
The basic objective of the U.S. antitrust laws is to preserve and promote competition and the free enterprise system. These laws were passed on the fundamental belief that private enterprise and free competition are the most efficient ways to allocate resources, to produce goods at the lowest possible price and to assure the production of high quality products.
Illegal tying is one of the most common antitrust claims. Simply put, a tying arrangement is an agreement by a party to sell or provide one product or service–the warranty service–but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different product—the battery– (often known as a positive tie), or at least agrees that he will not purchase that product from any other supplier (often known as a negative tie).
In the most basic sense, the seller has tied two products together, as if in a knot. The only way the buyer can get the one product is to also purchase another product that he or she may or may not want. In antitrust law, there are some arrangements or restrictions that have such a damaging effect on competition that courts have ruled them per se or automatically illegal.
This is one of the few practices that the United States Supreme Court has determined to be illegal per se under the Sherman Act, S 1. (The Sherman Act is a Criminal Statute with felony consequences. It also has civil remedies.)
An Unfair Trade Practice means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or services, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice. Under the state and federal laws the injured party can recover economic losses and attorneys’ fees.
Private individuals and corporations that are injured by violations of the U.S. antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, Clayton Act or the Robinson-Patman Act, may sue for injunctive relief, three times their actual damages, and their attorneys’ fees (15 U.S.C. §15).