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

In this case option E is correct which involve put option a and c.
Because are legally eligible and Pro competitive justification for concerted conduct between Rivals is truly justifiable when take into account the option A that is the quality of the product depend upon coordination it means that the product can be manufactured as per the identification of the Rival product in the market or in other words in this market products close substitute of each other.
Option explain that the conduct involved teams in a League maintaining competitive balance it means all the royal palms are ready to accept the competitiveness in the market and they maintain their product according to the market competition and pricing policies are also based on the competitiveness in the market.
Option B is not correct because price floor said by the parties was reasonable it is not possible because it means if parties are responsible for deciding the price then there is no meaning of competitiveness in the market and the Rival forms concept is also not applicable.
Option d it is also not at all applicable because according to option B none of the above is a legally cognizable justification for Collusion it is completely wrong because solution is a result of the existence of Rival Firms and competitive goods in the market.