It is illegal for a company to hold a monopoly on a good or service. True False

Law

1 answer:

lions [1.4K]3 years ago

5 0

It is illegal for a company to hold a monopoly on a good or service is false statement.

<h3><u>Explanation:</u></h3>

Monopoly is referred to as situation in the market where there is one and only one player of a particular/bunch of goods or services or both. In the situation of monopoly, the single player can charge the customers as per their wish, as there are no big players in current market. Sometimes, to avoid charging high, government bans company to hold a monopoly. Monopoly can be hold be a company either directly or indirectly.

Company can directly compete and try to take down the other competitors, if any, or directly acquire their company. Or company can indirectly build a very supreme product in such a way that no player is able to compete with them. In some cases, government can ban, but in some cases, even government cannot do anything to remove monopoly. Hence, it is not illegal for a company to hold a monopoly in every case, though it is illegal in few cases, but not in all the goods and services.

You might be interested in

What factor should a plaintiff consider when deciding which interference tort applies to a situation?

devlian [24]

The factor should a plaintiff consider when deciding which interference tort applies to a situation is that

The plaintiff must a contract that is with a third party;
The defendant must know about the contract at the time of the alleged interference
The defendant must have interfered intentionallly and the interference was not right
The actions of defendant’s led to a breach of the contract
The plaintiff has suffered some measure of damage as a result
The defendant knew a contract between the plaintiff and a third party existed.

For better understanding let's explain what tort interference means

There are two types of tortious interference

Tortious interference with contract
Tortious interference with good economic advantage.

Tort interference is regarded as an issue where one party was involved in something or does a thing to intentionally disregard another party’s business transactions or project

From the above we can therefore say that the answer the factors should a plaintiff consider when deciding which interference tort applies to a situation is that:

The plaintiff must a contract that is with a third party;
The defendant must know about the contract at the time of the alleged interference
The defendant must have interfered intentionallly and the interference was not right
The actions of defendant’s led to a breach of the contract
The plaintiff has suffered some measure of damage as a result
The defendant knew a contract between the plaintiff and a third party existed is correct

Learn more Tort interference from:

brainly.com/question/15058912

8 0

2 years ago

John is staunchly opposed to the legalization of marijuana. He believes that if we legalize marijuana, more people will start us

zepelin [54]

Ndnnenen e e eje eje. Eibbenhe

8 0

3 years ago

What does the PEN model stand for?

Lubov Fominskaja [6]

Psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism (PEN

3 0

3 years ago

What are the fundamental principles of the Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth cases in th

maks197457 [2]

Answer:

B. Employers are not liable for the acts of their supervisors, regardless of whether the employer is aware of the sexual harassment act.

Explanation:

In this case, the Supreme Court mentioned that an employer isat risk. That means that the empolyer does nor have a defense when sexual harassment by a supervisor involves a tangible employment action. Courts hope that employers educate supervisors so they do not commit any type of behavior that could be considered as sexual harassment. Also, all employees must be educated so as to understand their rights and responsibilities .

8 0

3 years ago

How do u use the 5 commandment in court

avanturin [10]

Freedom to press can be useful as can freedom to remain silent and innocent until proven guilty they have to prove your guilty not prove your innocents

8 0

3 years ago