Market Share – Coursework Example

Business Law: Tire Business In a free market economy, every entity is allowed to conduct market analysis and price itsproducts in a manner that will enhance customer attraction and retention. As such, the tire companies decisions is legal since they are operating is such a free market economy where competition and success is based on the quality of the products provided that give the customers satisfaction (Anderson, 2004).
In such a free market economy, the success of a business entity is based on its cutting edge in the type of service and products it offers to the customers irrespective of the price. Even though price is a factor in the determination of customer behavior, when it is slightly above the rest while the quality is also above the rest of similar products in the market, the consumer will not claim exploitation due to high satisfaction (Anderson, 2004). Therefore the manufacturers agreement is considered legal since consumers will still have options apart from the one provided by the three market share holders.
In an event of a filed suit, the defendants would be a preferred winner of the suit. First, the complainant is a persona nun granter (is not involved in the matter) by the fact that they were not involved in the pact and as such no breach has been done to them whatsoever. In most business deals, the rule of quad pro qua (something in return) often predominates for the continuity of the business. Because of that the defendants have the right to charge a little higher than other manufactures since their products are the best in the market and they also control the market share. In conclusion, it is within the jurisdiction of the defendants to operate in the manner they have adopted in order to increase their profitability commensurate to the quality they offer to the consumers (Anderson, 2004).
Reference
Anderson, (2004) Business Law second edition.