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 mid-mountain 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

Answer 1

No it wasn't a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Step-by-step explanation:

This is an actual court case which was ruled in favor of DVRC. The court used an analogy to compare DVRC with Disneyland, where the theme park owners would not allow competition within their premises. Even though DVRC sold the land parcel to Christy Sports, a restrictive covenant was imposed at the time of the sale where DVRC could decide freely which third party businesses could operate there. Since the covenant is legal, there is no reason why DVRC will not enforce it.