Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
You're confusing questions of fact and questions of law in the above. Whether or not their was an agreement between the publishers to fix prices is a question of fact. Whether or not their was a violation of competition laws is a question of law (obviously). On the question of fact, it's irrelevant what Amazon did or didn't do because there either was or was not an agreement (and you don't necessarily need a written agreement in cases of collusion). On the question of law, it's also likely irrelevant what Amazon did or didn't do; in any event, the court would be unlikely to give that much consideration as Amazon is not a party to the DoJ action so cannot cross-examine witnesses or call evidence.
And with respect to your scholarly knowledge of U.S. laws, note that Canadian law and American law are generally very similar as both countries use the Common Law system (well, Quebec uses French Civil Law, but that's an annoyance for another day), they differ mainly in the specifics. I would suggest that this thread probably isn't the place to start a conversation about the rules of precedent, what is or isn't obiter and and the merits of the Wikipedia article you cited.
Oh, and since we're declaring ourselves to be expert in things - I'm now a doctor.
|
Lol. You used merit and wikipedia in the same sentence.