Business Studies Paper on Antitrust laws
Antitrust laws are those regulations that are normally adopted in order to allow for free and fair competition within the market place. It should be noted that the aspect of competition makes it possible for business organizations to put forth lower prices that will help consumers to prefer consumption of these reduced commodities (Posner 65). The laws have often seen business entities merge in order to experience reduced costs of operations hence setting relatively reduced prices for the commodities. In the light of the anti-trust regulations, the paper will consider the action by the bar owners to avoid operation on Friday and Saturday as a counter action from the community residents. The move by the bar owners is also in reaction to the new policies that seek to discourage heavy drinking among persons. It is stated that the new policy seek to reduce heavy drinking that could be dangerous (Bowblis, John and Andrew 45)
One of the actions by the by owners that is responsible for the plaintiff actions is the decision to discontinue drink specials on Friday and Saturday. The action was adopted in order to punish individuals who drink. The choice for the days for discontinuation is well informed putting in mind the fact that most individuals consider drinking during the weekends.
The actions by the UW university students to file a lawsuit on the bar owners will also form central part of the discussion.
In the light of this, the plaintiff are justified to seek legal mechanisms for reinstating the offers allowing drinking at reduced prices. According to the anti-trust law, business persons are allowed to adopt the use of reduced prices and improved service delivery in order to compete effectively within the market place. The students can therefore use this piece of legislation in their suit. In addition, under business law, the buyer of any product is expected to be aware of all the consequences for any consumption (Tushnet 154). The law, ‘buyer be aware’ can also be used by the students to overturn the new policies that seek to eliminate special offers reasoning that they are aware of all the possible consequences of heavy drinking (Areeda, Phillip, Donald and Herbert 109).
In this case, the bar owners are the defendants in the case. This is because they are responsible to prove that their actions to eliminate the special offer was within the law. The actions by the bar-owners is within the law and their action cannot be disputed. Firstly, the bar owners are not required to adhere to all the requirements of the anti-trust law. This law only seek to improve the operations of business organizations and businesses are therefore not compelled to adopt the law in their activities. However, with regard to the new policy adopted in the city to help reduce heavy drinking, the bar owners are required to adhere to it. Though, the new regulation does not specify the action that should be adopted by the bar owners in strive to reduce heavy drinking. This gives the bar owners freedom of choosing the best course of action making the owners justified for their action to eliminate special offers on Friday and Saturday as from 8pm.
The court can adopt several ways in dealing with the case. However, the ruling should take into consideration the new policy adopted in the city as well as the interest of both the bar owners and the consumers. Firstly, the law can nullify the new regulations that seek to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed by individuals. The court can that the new policy violates the anti-trust law hence should not be implemented at any cost. This will then mean that the bar owners are to revert their decisions to remove specials during the said days. This ruling can also demand that the new regulation in the city to be amended in consideration of the anti-trust law.
Another way that the court can rule is that the bar owners to reconsider the strategy of reducing heavy drinking. This could involve posters that outlines the effects of heavy drinking or any other action but not through imposing specials.
Finally, the court can decide to nullify the case filed reasoning that is unfounded. Tis can be reasoned with regard to the intention of the bar owners in adoption their action. It is open that the intention of the bar owners was not motivated by selfish agenda but the need to control heavy drinking which is an ethical move. In addition, the court can again through back the case to relevant stakeholders within the city to reexamine the decision and come back with a move that takes into consideration the interest of all parties. Extensive involvement in the course of adopting the best course of action is to be recommended. This will leave the court with no mandate in deciding the legality or illegality on the part of the bar owners opr any other stakeholder involved in the case.
Areeda, Phillip, Donald F. Turner, and Herbert Hovenkamp. Antitrust law: an analysis of antitrust principles and their application. Vol. 2. Aspen law & business, 1978.
Bowblis, John R., and Andrew Ghattas. “The regulation of nursing homes in the US often includes mandates that require a minimum nurse staffing level. In this paper, we exploit new minimum nurse staffing regulations by the states of New Mexico and Vermont that were implemented in the early 2000s to determine how nursing homes responded in terms of staffing, quality, and the decision to exit the market. Our identification strategy exploits…” Review of Industrial Organization 50.1 (2017): 127-127.
Posner, Richard A. Antitrust law. University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Tushnet, Mark. “The Great Leveler: Capitalism and Competition in the Court of Law by Brett Christophers (review).” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 47.3 (2017): 405-407.