Sherman Act. An agreement that is blatantly and substan-tially anticompetitive

(1) Sherman Act. An agreement that is blatantly and substan-tially anticompetitive is deemed a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Under what rule is an agreement ana-lyzed if it appears to be anticompetitive but is not a per se violation? In making this analysis, what factors will a court consider?(2)Property Ownership. Twenty-two years ago, Lorenz was a wanderer. At that time, he decided to settle down on an unoccupied, three-acre parcel of land that he did not own. People in the area told him that they had no idea who owned the property. Lorenz built a house on the land, got married, and raised three children while living there. He fenced in the land, installed a gate with a sign above it that read “Lorenz’s Homestead,” and removed trespassers. Lorenz is now confronted by Joe Reese, who has a deed in his name as owner of the property. Reese, claiming owner-ship of the land, orders Lorenz and his family off the prop-erty. Discuss who has the better “title” to the property.(3)Deeds. Wiley and Gemma are neighbors. Wiley’s lot is extremely large, and his present and future use of it will not involve the entire area. Gemma wants to build a single-car garage and driveway along the present lot boundary. Because the placement of her existing structures makes it impossible for her to comply with an ordinance requiring buildings to be set back fifteen feet from an adjoining prop-erty line, Gemma cannot build the garage. Gemma con-tracts to purchase ten feet of Wiley’s property along their boundary line for $3,000. Wiley is willing to sell but will give Gemma only a quitclaim deed, whereas Gemma wants a warranty deed. Discuss the differences between these deeds as they would affect the rights of the parties if the title to this ten feet of land later proves to be defective.