Unfair Competition In Comparative Law. Antitrust Laws, Specific To American Law

• Author: Cristina (Gherman) Iuhas
• Pages: 46-49

UNFAIR COMPETITION IN COMPARATIVE LAW. ANTITRUST LAWS,

SPECIFIC TO AMERICAN LAW

PhD. student Cristina (GHERMAN) IUHAS1

Abstract

The paper aims to show how unfair competition is presented in the American law. In this approach we will

refer to the constitutional and legal consecratio n of unfair competition in America. We also want to highlight the

benefits and obligations that have an effect on the US -funded mechanisms. Using the comparison method, we have

concluded that the concept of "trust" represents an a rrangement by which the shareholders of commercial companies i n

a certain field merged u nder the patronage of an administrator in order to benefit from a share of the consolidated

profits of the jointly managed companies.

Keywords: trade, competition, America, antitrust law.

JEL Classification: K21, K33

1. Preliminary considerations

On the American continent, we meet the concept of "antitrust law", which forbids the

formation of monopolies that affect competition. The "trust" concept is an arrangement by which

the shareholders of some companies in a certain field, merged under the patronage of an

administrator in order to benefit from a share of the consolidated earnings of the jointly managed

companies. In short time, the trusts monopolized the industry and destroyed the competition2.

2. Antitrust laws, specific to American law

The first legislative act of this kind is the "Sherman Antitrust Act", adopted on July 2, 1890,

by the United States Congress. According to this legislative document, "Every contract,

combination in the form of trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce, is declared to be

illegal” 3. It also established that „Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or

combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or

commerce, shall be deemed guilty of a felony“4.

The Sherman antitrust law aimed at inter-state trade and allowed federal institutions to

dissolve the trusts and establish the illegality of any obstacles to trade or hindering trade with third

countries. The offence committed was punishable by both pecuniary and imprisonment for up to

one year, and the natural or legal persons who had suffered from the trusts' activity had the

possibility of recovering their losses and claiming multiple damages ("treble damages"), to the

federal court5. In the literature it was appreciated that the Sherman Act provided a legal framework

under which the courts of justice could have the prerogative to judge the activities of traders,

regardless of the lack of clarity and direction of the law (...) creating an unprecedented government

policy and opposite the Anglo-Saxon anti-monopolistic tradition”6.

1 Cristina (Gherman) Iuhas - Doctoral School o f the West University of Timisoara, Faculty of Law, Romania,

avocatiuhas@gmail.com.

2 Refer to Standard Oil Trust, created on January 2, 1882. It was run by a Board of Directors and each shareholder received 20

certificates for each share in Standard Oil stock. All the profits of the component companies were sent to the nine directors who

settled the dividends. The nine administrators chose the directors and officers of all the component companies. This allowed Standard

Oil to act as a monopoly, as the nine directors led all the component companies.

3 The National Archives, Our Documents: 100 Milestone Documents from the National Archives, Oxford University Press, USA,

2006, p. 124.

4 Ibidem.

5 Refer to the case Hanover Shoe v United Shoe Machinery Corp din 1968.

6 E. Duhnea, The Sherman Act - codification of common law or radical legislative reform?, „Revista Co ncurența” no. 1-2/2016, p.

49.