英语论文网

The case proceeded to trial with Seabury alleging, among other things, that both the PGA and MAPGA had colluded in violation of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and of Maryland's antitrust laws. Initially the jury returned a verdict for Seabury, finding that the PGA and MAPGA were not part of a single economic unit and that the PGA had conspired with MAPGA (and also with the Golf Manufacturers and Distributors Association) to illegally restrain trade. However, this was overturned on appeal. The Appellate Court concluded that the PGA and MAPGA were incapable of conspiring and that on this issue, judgment as a matter of law in their favour was appropriate. The court said that while the MAPGA is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the PGA and these entities are separately incorporated, the evidence at trial established that the PGA and its member sections function as a single economic unit with the PGA possessing ultimate control over the actions of individual sections. The court found it significant that the sections are governed by the PGA constitution, by policies adopted either at PGA annual meetings or by the PGA Board of Directors, and by other pertinent policy documents such as trademark licensing agreements. In addition, the sections' actions must be approved by the PGA to ensure that they are in the best interests of the organisation as a whole. For example, when the MAPGA sought to enter into the contract and its amendments with Seabury, the PGA had to approve these actions, and in this instance the PGA did approve the contract.

The Application of s46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974

Another basis for possible antitrust breach by Golf Australia (through its unquestioning adoption of the Rules of Golf) is s 46:

“(46) A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market shall not take advantage of that power for the purpose of:

a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market;

b) preventing the entry of a person in that or any other market; or

c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market.”

The purpose of this section is clear. It is about protecting economic aims, promoting the competitive process and through that the consumer. Therefore does the regulatory control of golf equipment by Golf Australia depress competitive outcomes and reduce consumer (golfer) welfare? Have the Rules operated to depress the capacity of existing firms to innovate, and new firms to enter the market?

Three elements must be met before s46 can be successfully invoked.

i) Market power by a corporation;

ii) The corporation must take advantage of that market power;

iii) And, the taking advantage must be for a proscribed purpose.

It is suggested that Golf Australia has market power. As the monopolist regulatory agency for Australia (its authority derived from one of the two Leviathans of world golf (the R&A in this instance), Golf Australia can act by adopting rules free from the constraints of com本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。