Question

Which of the following is a legally cognizable and procompetitive justification for concerted conduct between rivals?

	A.	The quality of the products depended upon coordination.
	B.	The price floor set by the parties was reasonable.
	C.	The conduct involved teams in a league maintaining competitive balance.
	D.	None of the above is a legally cognizable justification for collusion.
	E.	A and C.

Answer 1

ANSWER:

THE CORRECT OPTION IS E. ( A AND C).

put option A and C.

Since are lawfully qualified and Pro serious avocation for purposeful lead between Rivals is really reasonable when consider choice A that is the nature of the item rely on coordination it implies that the item can be made according to the recognizable proof of Rival item in the market or as it were in this market items close substitute of one another.

Choice clarify that lead included groups in a League keeping up serious parity it implies all the regal palms are prepared to acknowledge the seriousness in a market and they keep up their item as indicated by the market rivalry and valuing strategies are likewise founded intensity in the market.

Choice B isn't right since value floor said by the gatherings was sensible it is beyond the realm of imagination since it implies on the off chance that gatherings are answerable for choosing the value, at that point there is no importance of intensity in the market and the Rival structures idea is likewise not pertinent.

Choice d it is likewise not in the least relevant in light of the fact that as indicated by alternative B nothing from what was just mentioned is a legitimately cognizable legitimization for Collusion it is totally off-base since arrangement is a consequence of the presence of Rival Firms and serious products in the market.

PLEASE UPVOTE.