Home > Free Essays > Economics > Economic Systems & Principles > Antitrust (monopolization) case between the U.S. (Plaintiff) and the E. I. DuPont (Defendant)
Cite this

Antitrust (monopolization) case between the U.S. (Plaintiff) and the E. I. DuPont (Defendant) Case Study


DuPont was sued for allegedly monopolizing the interstate commerce, thus giving other companies in the same sector hardships in reaching out to the prospective markets and customers. The available markets became flooded with goods from one business entity. This was a strategy of making sure that none of the new companies had the means of matching the competition DuPont presented.

Although the suit before the court was a challenge evaluating the violation of the antitrust law, it was clear that there were economic impacts that were brought about by the monopoly that was created by the company. All the companies should be put on the same footing in terms of having the means to market their products in order to have an organized way of generating income.

The established companies should not be allowed to sell their products at lower prices because the new entrants in the market can lack a place in the growing market. It is an impediment to the expansion of the markets when there is only one nature of products that are sold at a very low price.

The decision was what the court felt was right given the circumstances. The decision was made with the intention of deterring other companies. It is this reasoning that saw a lot of mistakes in the economic sense being condoned. It was in this instance that the court applied the Sherman Act without taking into account some of the economic effects of the decision.

The consumers were following the guideline of a case that was held in total disregard for the economic principles that govern the running of free markets. It was at this point that the courts found it useful to hold the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, while the decision itself could not stand the test of economic advancement.

It is imperative to note the effects of the decisions to be reached by the court on the market in a case whereby the parties to the case are not both parties in the running of the market. A monopoly enjoyed by one party may be out of sheer handwork without any proof of mischief on the part of the company.

There were other companies in the case that were entrusted with the mandate of ensuring that the licensed patents were not used against the set out agreements. The patent rights of designing the Cellophane were meant to market the product in other parts of the world. This was made possible through licensing of the product.

The company engaged in the search for cheap employment, while strictly guarding its rights to make Cellophane. The popularity of the company went up, with customers having a great liking for their products. At the same time, the company ensured that the products were equally competitive. This was a major boost for the company.

The company was placed in a better position through its efforts and the virtue of having a wide base of customers. It was the quality of the goods that ensured that there was an immense liking for the company’s products. There was monopoly and unfair competition. There was no link between the allegation and the evidence offered, although the court held in favor of the plaintiff.

The market for DuPoint’s products, both in the United States and other parts of the world, became commendable. There was a need to reduce the prices of many of their products given the high percentage of market share. This was a gesture that enabled the company to compete against most of its competitors.

There was no evidence to indicate that there was any form of manipulation used by the company. The prices were set according to the economic dynamics of supply and demand. It was the dictates of supply that placed the company in a better place compared to its rivals.

In the given circumstances, the decision by the court rendered a stringent measure on the company. This made the market less competitive. The court’s decision was largely an interference with the functioning of the market. In that case, it was appropriate to ensure that the impacts of the decision were assessed by the court making the ruling. It was a major violation of the economic initiatives and the rules that govern competition.

It is evident that DuPont was not taking part in any form of manipulation of prices. This means that the prices in the market were left in the hands of the consumers. The consumers in this case were willing to buy the products of DuPont depending on their quality. The decision by the court in the antitrust case was a major interference with the rules of advertising.

Therefore, it is true to observe that the decision was a clear centralization of the market. It was a clear move to strengthen the weak companies by weakening the strong ones. This was made with complete disregard for the principles of supply and demand in every free market.

The salient features of a free market were greatly interfered with. In some countries, the government takes the role of regulating the markets, but in this case it was the court that took over the role. Courts can only interpret the law in favor of economic activities if they consider the effects of the decision.

This case study on Antitrust (monopolization) case between the U.S. (Plaintiff) and the E. I. DuPont (Defendant) was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.

Need a custom Case Study sample written from scratch by
professional specifically for you?

Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar

301 certified writers online

GET WRITING HELP
Cite This paper

Select a website referencing style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2019, April 19). Antitrust (monopolization) case between the U.S. (Plaintiff) and the E. I. DuPont (Defendant). Retrieved from https://ivypanda.com/essays/antitrust-monopolization-case-between-the-u-s-plaintiff-and-the-e-i-dupont-defendant-case-study/

Work Cited

"Antitrust (monopolization) case between the U.S. (Plaintiff) and the E. I. DuPont (Defendant)." IvyPanda, 19 Apr. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/antitrust-monopolization-case-between-the-u-s-plaintiff-and-the-e-i-dupont-defendant-case-study/.

1. IvyPanda. "Antitrust (monopolization) case between the U.S. (Plaintiff) and the E. I. DuPont (Defendant)." April 19, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/antitrust-monopolization-case-between-the-u-s-plaintiff-and-the-e-i-dupont-defendant-case-study/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Antitrust (monopolization) case between the U.S. (Plaintiff) and the E. I. DuPont (Defendant)." April 19, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/antitrust-monopolization-case-between-the-u-s-plaintiff-and-the-e-i-dupont-defendant-case-study/.

References

IvyPanda. 2019. "Antitrust (monopolization) case between the U.S. (Plaintiff) and the E. I. DuPont (Defendant)." April 19, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/antitrust-monopolization-case-between-the-u-s-plaintiff-and-the-e-i-dupont-defendant-case-study/.

References

IvyPanda. (2019) 'Antitrust (monopolization) case between the U.S. (Plaintiff) and the E. I. DuPont (Defendant)'. 19 April.

Related papers