Law homework help. 22-1 Explain the common-law methods of resolving pollution problems and evaluate their effectiveness.
22-2 Explain the circumstances under which an environmental impact statement must be filed, and describe the statement’s required content.
22-3 Explain how emission charges and discharge permits could be used to help control pollution.
24-6 Texaco, Inc., and Shell Oil Co. are competitors in the national and international oil and gasoline markets. They refine crude oil into gasoline and sell it to service station owners and others. Between 1998 and 2002, Texaco and Shell engaged in a joint venture, Equilon Enterprises, to consolidate their operations in the western United States and a separate venture, Motiva Enterprises, for the same purpose in the eastern United States. This ended their competition in the domestic refining and marketing of gasoline. As part of the ventures, Texaco and Shell agreed to pool their resources and share the risks and profits of their joint activities. The Federal Trade Commission and several states approved the formation of these entities without restricting the pricing of their gasoline, which the ventures began to sell at a single price under the original Texaco and Shell brand names. Fouad Dagher and other station owners filed a suit in a federal district court against Texaco and Shell, alleging that the defendants were engaged in illegal price-fixing. Do the circumstances in this case fit the definition of a price-fixing agreement? Explain. Texaco Inc. v. Dahger, 547 U.S. 1, 126 S. Ct. 1276, 164 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006).
24-7 Topco is a cooperative association of 25 small- and medium-sized regional supermarket chains that operate in 33 states. To compete with large supermarket chains, Topco buys and distributes for its members quality merchandise under private labels. Each member of the cooperative has to sign an agreement promising to sell Topco-brand products only in a certain designated territory. The government sued Topco, claiming it was horizontally dividing markets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The defendant argued that this territorial restriction was necessary to compete with large chains. Who won this case and why?
24-8 Falstaff Brewing Company was the fourth-largest brewer in the United States, with 5.9 percent of the national market. Falstaff acquired a local New England brewery, Narragansett, in order to penetrate the New England market. Narragansett had 20 percent of that market. The Justice Department filed suit against Falstaff under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. What was the result? Explain.
24-9 Dentsply International, Inc., is one of a dozen manufacturers of artificial teeth for dentures and other restorative devices. Dentsply sells its teeth to 23 dealers of dental products. The dealers supply the teeth to dental laboratories, which fabricate dentures for sale to dentists. There are hundreds of other dealers who compete with each other on the basis of price and service. Some manufacturers sell directly to the laboratories. There are also thousands of laboratories that compete with each other on the basis of price and service. Because of advances in dental medicine, however, artificial tooth manufacturing is marked by low growth potential, and Dentsply prohibits its dealers from marketing competitors’ teeth unless they were selling teeth before 1993. The federal government filed a suit in a federal district court against Dentsply, alleging, among other things, a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. What must the government show to succeed in its suit? Are those elements present in the case? What should the court rule?
25-3 Explain the general types of deceptive advertising the FTC is most concerned with.
25-4 Explain the suretyship agreement. 25-5 What must be disclosed by a consumer credit reporting agency under the FCRA?
25-6 What enforcement weapon does the FTC use against parties that violate the ECOA? Explain.