0

Does "Only Unreasonable Restraint of Trade Forbidden" refer to "Only Unreasonable Restraint of Trade Is Forbidden"?

Would you like to rewrite the phrase in more words so that I can understand it clearly?

Standard Oil Company Must Dissolve in 6 Months; Only Unreasonable Restraint of Trade Forbidden And of Such Unreasonable Restraint the Supreme Court Finds the Standard Guilty

Source: NYTimes Archive

6
  • 3
    This is headline-ese, not a real sentence. Words are omitted because it's a headline in a newspaper. May 5 at 13:31
  • Thanks. But was my understanding correct there?
    – NewPlanet
    May 5 at 13:35
  • 1
    Yes, it is. Also the subject is omitted -- restraint of trade (is) forbidden (by whom). May 5 at 13:40
  • "Whom" refers back to Standard Oil Company?
    – NewPlanet
    May 5 at 13:43
  • 2
    @NewPlanet - No, when FeliniusRex says "by whom" he means "by whoever is forbidding the action." Standard Oil is not doing the forbidding, the court is doing the forbidding.
    – stangdon
    May 5 at 17:26
1

Yes, the case in question revolves around the sherman antitrust act. This case is reversing the decision of a previous case by determining that the act is only violated by entities whose existence "unreasonably restrains" interstate commerce. In the earlier supreme court case, they ruled that any company that restrains commerce could potentially violate the act. (In other words, this case inserted the word "unreasonably" into the law). So if a company, in this case standard oil, unreasonably restrains interstate commerce, they can be dissolved by the US government.

Tldr: the court overturned a previous ruling by adding that a company is only in violation of the sherman antitrust act if they "unreasonably"restrain interstate commerce.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.