Week 7 Application In 1890 the Sherman Act was form it was a federal anti-monopoly and anti-trust statute that prohibited activities that restricted interstate commerce and competition in the marketplace. The purpose of the Sherman Act was to prevent larger companies from gaining control and forming trusts to in the competition. But, because the Sherman Act was used in reverse against the labor unions to dismantle the unions it was eventually abandoned (Johnson.2001). The evolution of the Sherman Act has provided a guide to the Courts to find the appropriate jurisdictional balance for its general Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause legislation also provides a map for judicial understanding of reducing legal uncertainty raised by the statutory shock. This clause was passed in response from the masses about the fears that the larger companies were beyond power of …show more content…
Yes, the courts influenced the statues of the Clayton Act by addressing specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. The Clayton Act was amended again in 1976 by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act to require companies planning large mergers or acquisitions to notify the government of their plans in advance. The Clayton Act also authorizes private parties to sue for triple damages when they have been harmed by conduct that violates either the Sherman or Clayton Act and to obtain a court order prohibiting the anticompetitive practice in the future