Price-fixing agreements are among the monopolistic restraint-of-trade practices prohibited by Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Supreme Court has concluded that a formal agreement is not necessary to prove conspiracy. Instead, conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused even if the consequences might be considered socially desirable. The presidents of the universities charged with price-fixing in the MIT case defended their business practices with the argument that they openly met to fix prices in order to improve education. With tuition and the amount of financial aid fixed, students and parents will choose their university on the basis of academic quality alone. Can you give the presidents a better argument for their defense?
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 How can we help with you?