The U.S. Congress enacted the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, which makes antitrust violations a crime. Section 1 of the statute prohibits any contract, combination, or conspiracy that results in a restraint of trade that impacts interstate commerce. The key to a Section 1 violation of the Sherman Anti- trust Act is proof of collective action by two or more entities. Section 2 of the statute prohibits every person from monopolizing any part of interstate trade or commerce. In contrast to a Section 1 violation, a Section 2 violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act is primarily concerned with unilateral conduct and requires a showing that the targeted entity possesses substantial control over the market for a commodity. 

Section 1 violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act can be categorized into horizontal restraints of trade and vertical restraints of trade. Horizontal restraints of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act concern agreements among rival competitors to restrict output, fix prices, divide markets, and exclude other competitors. For example, when all of the manufacturers, all of the wholesalers, or all of the retailers of a product agree to raise the price of the product, then such action by the manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers would violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Perhaps one of the best examples of this kind of violation can be found in an examination of oil companies and the price of gas. The crucial proof problem in this kind of antitrust case is proof of an agreement among competitors. Although proof of an actual written or oral agreement between competitors is possible, an agreement in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act can also be proven by circumstantial evidence. For example, proof that on a particular day every month for a certain period of time, the price of gas sold to gas stations went up by $.02 per gallon is some proof that the oil companies may have an agreement to fix the price of gas.

Another customary practice that may result in a violation of Section of the Sherman Act occurs when two or more competitors agree to allocate geographic markets. For example, if one group of onion growers agree with another group of onion growers to only sell onions in a particular number of states in the western part of the United States, and the other onion growers agree to only sell onions in other particular states in the western part of the United States, then this kind of "horizontal" agreement to divide market territories would be illegal.

Please answer the following questions based off of the passage provided above . Also, don't forget AI is not permitted.

1. Why is the Sherman Antitrust Act important for a public procurement professional?

2. What are some of the constraints to statutory law regarding public records requests?

3. What is the Law of Agency?

4. Why is transparency important in public procurement?

5. What is the purpose of a Public Procurement Policy Office?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

ANSWER The Sherman Antitrust Act is important for a public procurement professional because it prohibits anticompetitive behavior and promotes fair competition in the marketplace Public procurement pr... View the full answer