In CASE 16.1 Leegin Creative Leather Products,Inc.v.PSKS,Inc.(2007),Leegin instituted a retail pricing and promotion policy and refused to sell to retailers that discounted Brighton goods below Leegin's suggested retail prices.PSKS sued Leegin,alleging that Leegin had violated the antitrust laws by "enter[ing] into agreements with retailers to charge only those prices fixed by Leegin." The court agreed with PSKS that it is per se illegal for a manufacturer to agree with its distributor to set the minimum price that the distributor can charge for the manufacturer's goods.The appeal of this decision involved a question of whether _____ should be analyzed under the _____.
A) resale price maintenance agreements; rule of reason
B) a horizontal conspiracy; per se rule
C) conglomerate mergers; per se rule
D) a vertical conspiracy; rule of reason

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The question is asking about the analysis of resale price maintenance agreements, which are agreements between a manufacturer and its distributors regarding the minimum price that can be charged for the manufacturer's goods. The court in Leegin found that such agreements should not be considered per se illegal, but rather analyzed under the rule of reason. Therefore, the correct choice is A, resale price maintenance agreements analyzed under the rule of reason.