This assignment is just to summary the case listed and provide your opinion wither you agree or not and why with the court decision, a tablet is provided. The summary has to be clear to the point and give all important info about the case. Starts with wh

Parker v. Brown [338 U.S. 341 (1943)]

1. The antitrust law(s) applied: Sherman Act, Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, and Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

2. What happened? The Appellee, Brown was a producer and packer of raisins in California. Respondent was Parker, Director of Agriculture of the State. By the time of the trial, almost all of the raisins consumed in the US and nearly one-half of the world’s consumptions are produced in Raisin Proration Zone No.1 which is important in this case. Between 90 and 95 percent of the raisins grown in California are shipped in interstate or foreign commerce which is important because interstate commerce is addressed by the Sherman Act. In Zone No.1 a marketing plan was established by state officials, authorized by the California Agricultural Prorate Act. Its purpose was to conserve the agricultural wealth of the State and to prevent economic waste in the marketing of agricultural products. Along with this marketing program, in 1940, raisins were classified into different groups. Furthermore, only 30% of the harvest could be sold through ordinary commercial channels by the farmer. The rest went into a “surplus”, and a “stabilization pool.” Appellee stated and the District Court followed that the proration program of the sate was a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Sherman Act, as well as the Federal Agricultural Marketing Agreement. His main concern was that he had entered into several contracts before the adoption of the plan and was not able to fulfill the contracts anymore.

3. The court’s decision: Supreme Court found that the state entered into no conspiracy in restraint of trade or to establish a monopoly. Thus its behavior is not illegal under the Sherman Act and the decision of the District Court is reversed.

4. The punch line: Nothing can be found in the Sherman Act that restrains a state or its officials from activities directed by its legislature!

5. The economic concept addressed: Antitrust Economics, involvement of the state.

6. New antitrust concepts introduced: New applied model is the state action doctrine which underlines the sovereignty of the state.

7. Do you agree with the decision? Why and why not? I think the taken actions and restraints would have been illegal if a firm was engaged instead of the state. I also do understand that states have rights, written down in the constitution which firms do not have, and which can not be overruled by the law easily, although it is possible. I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court but think that the appellee Brown might have been treated unfairly. In case he was not informed early enough about the marketing program which means when he signed his contracts, it is not his fault that he could not fulfill them. Maybe he should claim for cancellation of the latter, or compensation.