Slide background
Slide background

Journals come in both print and online editions. You can submit your articles by any one of the following three methods: 1. You can send the full papers/articles directly to our gmail id: issnjournals2u@gmail.com (Or) 2.Register/Login to Submit/Browse Journal & Events Listings with full control (Or) 3. Submit papers/articles without registration by clicking here.
For any assistance, please call/whatsapp us over our mobile numbers: +919245777148 / +919486068813

CARTEL CULPABILITY: BENCHMARKING LEGAL STANDARDS (Pages 118-127) by Mr. Sehgal Rakesh Kumar in THE INTERNATIONAL MANAGER / ISSN: 2348-9413 (Online); 2348-9405 (Print)

MS Updated
 
3.3
 
3.7 (1)
571 0 0 0 1 0

Journals

Please Login
To view the complete details of the Journal, please login.
Publication Year

By Rakesh Kumar Sehgal 1 Culpability of cartels through collusive conduct is worth examining for its deleterious anti competitive effect of distortion to market efficiency as the operation of cartels distorts free and fair market morphedly and attracts violations under Anti Trust Legislations. Judicial review with respect to cartel and evidential issues most often arise in context of the alleged concerted conduct resulting in effects of concentration and or exclusionary conduct collusive economic conspiracies under certain common law jurisdictions; the need to seen and analyzed on parameters of evolution in national legal systems in fragmenting an activity which hitherto the private law has been traditionally governing. It is but natural that in areas of private laws like negligence standards in torts, the treatment standards for cartels as unlawful activity are hazy and veritably red herring due to the smoke screen around cartels and varying responses to determine cartel culpability in terms of legal standards followed. Keywords: Culpability of Cartels, Market Efficiency, Market Morphedly, Cartels Distorts, Anti Trust Legislations, Evidential Issues, National Legal Systems, Negligence Standards, Red Herring.

Editor reviews

1 reviews

Reviewed by Editorial Board
(Updated: March 02, 2020)
Overall rating 
 
3.3
Expertise 
 
3.0
Relevancy 
 
4.0
Presentation 
 
3.0
Fulfills all criteria
Comments (0) | Was this review helpful to you? 0 0

User reviews

1 reviews

Overall rating 
 
3.7
Expertise 
 
4.0  (1)
Relevancy 
 
4.0  (1)
Presentation 
 
3.0  (1)
To write a review please register or
Reviewed by me alone
Overall rating 
 
3.7
Expertise 
 
4.0
Relevancy 
 
4.0
Presentation 
 
3.0
Urgent please
MS
Report this review Comments (0) | Was this review helpful to you? 0 0
 
     
Forgot Login?   Sign up  

Choose Archives

advertise with us 1