Business Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Business Law - Case Study Example 2). On the other hand, the Clayton Antitrust Act, another antitrust law of the United States of America, prohibits "exclusive dealings", "mergers or acquisition" if these acts substantially lessen competition (15 U.S.C., secs. 14 and 18). The US antitrust law refers to the body of laws that make illegal or unlawful certain business practices deemed to hurt businesses or consumers, or both, or violate business ethics. These include anti-competitive behaviors such as monopoly, restraint of trade and commerce, and unfair business practices like exclusive dealings, mergers, and acquisition and other practices that lessen business competition or harm the economy. In order to determine whether a corporate action or conduct is anti-competitive and thus prohibited by the antitrust law, two methods can be applied: the per se rule and the rule of reason. Under the per se rule which was utilized in the Sherman Antitrust Act, a corporate conduct is anti-competitive if is overwhelmingly harmful to the business or to the economy like horizontal price fixing or territorial division agreement. It does not require further evidences since it is evident on the face of the agreement itself. The rule of reason on the other hand, utilized in the Clayton Antitrust Act, requires the plaintiff to prove that the agreement caused economic harm in addition to proving that the defendant acted as charged. Merger is most likely the type of transaction that Awesea will offer in the case at hand. A merger is considered when both CEO's agree that joining together is in the best interest of the companies, as in the increase of sales but cutting the cost of operational expenses. The law on merger in relation to antitrust law is governed under section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. It was further strengthened by the Celler-Kefauver Amendments of 1950 and the various merger guidelines issued by the US Department of Justice. Said laws modified the Sherman Antitrust Act where a mere merger is a violation of the antitrust law as a method of promoting monopoly (Sec. 1). At present, any challenges in the legality of mergers are decided using the rule of reason, that is, the plaintiff can only prevail upon proving to the court that the defendants are doing something which can bring substantial economic harm. The Clayton Act also allows the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice to regulate all mergers and gives the government discretion whether to approve a merger or not. Another law, the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act, provides in summary that before a certain merger can close, both parties must file a "Notification and Report Form" with the FTC and the Assistant Attorney General in-charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice so that the regulatory bodies can assess whether the proposed transactions violate the antitrust law of the US. Applying the rule of reason under the Clayton Act, when a company merges or acquired another company in order to promote its product in a certain country or to increase it sales, said transaction lessens competition, thus violates the antitrust law. The said fact is supported by various decided cases by the US Supreme Court which still are in effect today. One case is US v. Falstaff Brewing Copr., et. al., 410 U.S.

Criminology Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Criminology - Essay Example In fact, crime is a social construct that helps to identify the cultures values, mores and the acceptable behavior within the society. Mertons theory says that society shapes the way people are to act and appear within certain confines. He says that aspiration is very important to the achievement in people and that society determines how people should aspire to their goals. He suggests that anomie in society creates a link between how people place emphasis on aspirations and the "levels of emphasis" they place on these aspirations (Davis, 2005). Merton says that crime is not a positive aspect of society and that it does not help it. Instead, crime is an example of how poorly a society is organized. When examining these theories it is very easy to see what Merton is talking about when you look at crime in the United States. There are a number of people who aspire to the goal of attaining wealth or some level of comfort. They have prescribed to the need to take care of their homes and families and they have good jobs that support their ends. However, there is a large group of society who does not have access to good jobs or to wealth. They live in poverty or they are homeless. Still others are involved with crime because this is the "easiest way" in their minds to create the money they need for their basic needs or to acquire wealth. They do not prescribe to societys social order but instead make rules of their own. One of the greatest reasons why this happens is because the basic needs have not been met by a society that is more influenced by power and achievement than it is on making sure that all citizens achieve. According to Derkheim (1897): No living being can be happy or even exist unless his needs are sufficiently proportioned to his means. In other words, if his needs require more than can be granted, or even merely something of a different sort, they will be under continual friction and can only function painfully. Movements incapable

Flag Protection Act of 1989 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Flag Protection Act of 1989 - Essay Example (2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section. (d)(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection (a). (2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible. " 1989 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101-131, Sec. 2(a), amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: ''Whoever knowingly casts contempt upon any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon it shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.'' Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101-131, Sec. 2(b), amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. ... any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon it shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.'' Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101-131, Sec. 2(b), amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: ''The term 'flag of the United States' as used in this section, shall include any flag, standard colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, color, or ensign of the United States of America, or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, standards, colors, or ensign of the United States of America.'' Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 101-131, Sec. 3, added subsec. (d). SHORT TITLE OF 1989 AMENDMENT Section 1 of Pub. L. 101-131 provided that: ''This Act (amending this section) may be cited as the 'Flag Protection Act of 1989' [1].'' Texas v. Johnson In first 20 years, the Act was upheld by the local courts and Supreme Court refused to notice it, but then in 1984, during the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Johnson set the flag on fire during the protest. He was convicted of desecration and was sentenced one year in prison and was also fined $ 2000.00. The case went to Supreme Court which affirmed this decision. As a result of this, Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act 1989, according to which, the country's flag should never be desecrated in any form