Questions and Case Problem
1. It is well established that the U.S. Court has the territorial jurisdiction to apply, the plaintiff will have to prove to the Court how the conduct of the defendant has an impact on the U.S. market and how their behavior was unlawful based on the Sherman Act. If the plaintiff will be able to prove that the Slobovian’s cartel rejecting the purchasing of the goom mine has a negative effect on the U.S. customers, then the Sherman Act can be applied. The U.S. State in case the defendant is found guilty, will send a note to the Slobovian government with the verdict, it will then be up to the Slobovian Court to fine or apply the decision. 2. If the Slobovian government will ignore the U.S. request, their relation will be negatively impacted and probably there could be some military actions against Slobovia. 3. Other than demonstrate that the agreement has been unlawful because it was intended to affect United States imports, the other additional point he is discussing is regarding the influence upon prices. An agreement to withdraw any substantial part of the supply market from a market would, if carried out, have some effect upon prices, and was as unlawful as an agreement expressly to fix prices. All factors that contribute prices, must be kept free to operate unconditioned by agreements. 4. Judge Hand would have probably been more careful and cautious in his analysis, but if the result of it would have been the same, he should have had the same verdict. As a Judge, he is supposed to apply the law, and if the law was not changed in the meantime, the effect should be the same independently of a war situation or allies. 5. There can be a few reasons to bring as case under the U.S. court: a. Treble damages: that permits a court to triple the amount of the actual/compensatory damages to be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff b. More than one action will be for sure more useful than only one in the Union 6. The...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document