Critical Legal Thinking

Chapter 46 – Critical Legal Thinking Cases, 46.1 Division of Markets on pages 778-779• Chapter 46 – Critical Legal Thinking Cases, 46.3 Tying Arrangement on page 779
• • You will review the following cases and respond to the questions at the end of the case information in a short essay format. EACH Case should have a minimum of 2-3 paragraphs in response to the provided questions.

Chapter 46 – Critical Legal Thinking Cases, 46.1 Division of Markets on pages 778-779
• Law school students, after they graduate from law sc hool, must take and pass a bar exam before they can become a lawyer in a state. Most law students take a preparatory bar exam course before they take the bar exam. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal (HBJ) was the nation’s largest provider of bar review materials and preparatory services. HBJ began offering a Georgia bar review course in direct competition with BRG of Georgia, Inc. (BRG), which was the only other main provider of a bar review preparatory course in the state of Georgia. Subsequently, HBJ and BRG entered into an agreement whereby BRG was granted an exclusive license to market HBJ bar review materials in Georgia in exchange for paying HBJ $100 per student enrolled by BRG in the course. Thus, HBJ agreed not to compete with BRG in Georgia, and BRG agreed not compete with HBJ outside Georgia. Immediately after the agreement was struck, the price of BRG’s course in the state of Georgia was increased from $150 to $400. Jay Palmer and other law school graduates who took the BRG bar review course in preparation for the Georgia bar exam sued BRG and HBJ, alleging a geographical division of markets, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Are BRG and HBJ liable for violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act? Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc., 498 U.S. 46, 111 S.Ct. 401, 112 L.Ed. 2d 349, Web 1990 U.S. Lexis 5901 (Supreme Court of the United States)

• Chapter 46 – Critical Legal Thinking Cases, 46.3 Tying Arrangement on page 779
Mercedes-Benz of North America (MBNA) was the exclusive franchiser of Mercedes-Benz dealerships in the United States. MBNA’s franchise agreements required each dealer to establish a customer service department for the repair of Mercedes-Benz automobiles and required dealers to purchase Mercedes-Benz replacement parts from MBNA. At least eight independent wholesale distributors, including Metriz Warehouse, Inc. sold replacement parts for Mercedes-Benz automobiles. Because they precluded from selling parts to Mercedes-Benz dealers, these parts distributors sold their replacement parts to independent garages that specialized in the repair of Mercedes-Benz automobiles. Evidence showed that Metriz sold replacement parts for Mercedes-Benz automobiles of equal quality and at a lower price than those sold by MBNA. Metrix sued MBNA, alleging a tying arrangement, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Who wins? Metrix Warehouse, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., 828 F.2d 1033, 1987 U.S. App. Lexis 12341 (United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.