1. What are the required elements of a monopolization claim? Attempted monopolization?

2. To show a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the plaintiff must show both that the defendant has market power in a relevant market and that it has engaged in anticompetitive conduct. What arguments did Christy Sports put forth on these two elements? What conclusions did the court reach about these two elements?

3. Why does the court conclude that competition is not harmed if DVRC enforces its covenant and becomes the sole ski rental operator in this geographic area?

4. Do you think that this outcome is fair to Christy Sports? Could Christy Sports have planned its own business activities so as to avoid or minimize the financial ramifications of DVRC acting in this manner?

When the Deer Valley Resort Company (“DVRC”) was developing its world-renowned ski resort in the Wasatch Mountains, it sold parcels of land within the resort village to third parties, while reserving the right of approval over the conduct of certain ancillary businesses on the property, including ski rentals. For about fifteen years, DVRC granted permission to Cole Sports and plaintiff appellant Christy Sports to rent skis in competition with its own ski rental outlet. More recently, however, DVRC revoked that permission, presumably in order to gain more business for its own newly-opened mid-mountain ski rental store. The question is whether this revocation violated the antitrust laws. We conclude that it did not.