FINAL:. I. Food stores compete primarily based on diffe
Added on - Sep 2019
Showing pages 1 to 1 of 3 pages
FINAL:IFood stores compete primarily based on differentiation rather than simply on location andprice.Differentiating factors can include such things as low prices, ethnic appeal, qualitypreparedfoods, expanded variety within a specific category or department, customer service, orperishabledepartments such as meats or produce and Lars, the proprietor, has spent yearscultivatingrelationships with food suppliers. All the suppliers might not be from the same region alsowhereWhole Foods makes the purchase agreement and it also applies for the perishable products.Soitcan definitely challenge the Whole Foods 1stPolicy would besucceeded.Demandforthefollowingspecifictypesoforganicproductshasincreaseddramaticallyjustoverthe past five years. Whole Foods average price is 12% higher than the other Competitorsorretailers in the Market though it gives 5% discount on Purchases of $250 in groceries, andthereare a good number of customers who checks the price with the other retailers or Sellers.So,theChallenge to the Second policy will besucceeded.Lars, Super Yurt sells herbal remedies which is a USP for them. They can expand inthisparticular brand attributes and can easily provide health and beauty aids for Customers.So,theChallenge to the Third policy will besucceeded.These three suggestions are with the Antitrust Law as Antitrust Law itself with benefitsofthe Customer and overallefficiency.IIAntitrust Law itself with benefits of the Customer and overall efficiency.Sherman Actattemptstoprevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply. It preserves acompetitivemarketplace to protect consumers from abuses. Thenon-discriminatory provisions (“NDPs”)arecompletely with the Sherman Act AntitrustLawAsanemployeeinAntitrustDivisionoftheDepartmentofJusticeIwillgivemyopiniontotheSupervisor that the Divisions should not pursue theCase.IIIAs there C5 has no IP Protection and it came after G then by lowering the price of C by 20%with the combined deal by making it as compulsory product is not a Lawful deal. AntitrustLawitself with benefits of the Customer and overall efficiency and Sherman Act protectconsumersfromabuses.