Final answer:
Crispy Clowns cereal refusing to sell to stores that carry a competing brand is an example of a vertical restraint of trade, which can potentially be anticompetitive. Legal monopolies are government-sanctioned and restricted practices. Monopolization requires market control and substantial harm to competition which is not necessarily the case here.
option a is the correct
Step-by-step explanation:
If Crispy Clowns cereal refuses to sell cereal to grocery stores that also carry Choco-Clowns brand cereal, this action would be an example of a vertical restraint of trade. Such practices often surface in business where a supplier dictates certain terms to a retailer. In the context of antitrust laws, a firm—like Crispy Clowns—using its market position to curtail competition by creating exclusive dealing agreements or other types of vertical restraints can potentially decrease competition.
Legal monopolies, on the other hand, are instances where the government allows certain entities to operate without competition, providing they serve the public need and are subjected to regulation, such as utilities. Restrictive practices in antitrust laws pertain to activities that may indirectly reduce competition but are not outright agreements to raise prices or lower production. While a monopoly achieved through innovation or efficiency is not illegal, practices that unduly restrict competitive markets could face legal scrutiny.
Our subject case would most likely not be considered monopolization, as defined under antitrust laws, unless Crispy Clowns controlled a significant part of the market and used that power to harm competition substantially. Furthermore, horizontal refusals to deal involve agreements between competitors—the example provided does not indicate such collusion.