Question

When Deer Valley Resort Co. (DVRC) was developing its ski resort in the Wasatch Mountains near Park City, Utah, it sold parcels of land in the resort village to third parties. Each sales contract reserved the right of approval over the conduct of certain businesses on the property, including ski rentals. For fifteen years, DVRC permitted Christy Sports, LLC, to rent skis in competition with DVRC’s ski rental outlet. When DVRC opened a new midmountain ski rental outlet, it revoked Christy’s permission to rent skis. This meant that most skiers who flew into Salt Lake City and shuttled to Deer Valley had few choices: they could carry their ski equipment with them on their flights, take a shuttle into Park City and look for cheaper ski rentals there, or rent from DVRC. Christy filed a suit in a federal district court against DVRC. Was DVRC’s action an attempt to monopolize in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act? Why or why not? [Christy Sports, LLC v. Deer Valley Resort Co., 555 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2009)] (See Monopolization.)

Answer 1

Yes, In this case DRVC acted alone so Sherman Act may apply.

Step-by-step explanation:

Sherman acts states that every person who shall monopolize or attempts to monopolize or conspire with other person to monopolize any part of trade among the several states with foreign nations shall be deemed guilty of a felony. This act can be violated by one or more persons.