Read the following scenario and answer the question in 5 sentences at least. You are the president of the American Association of Construction Manufacturers (AACM), a trade association that represents seven hundred companies who build and sell heavy construction equipment. Members have proposed a number of initiatives to advance AACM interests. First, some members want an AACM advocacy group to lobby Congress for relaxing trade barriers on importing raw materials and parts. Second, some of the smaller AACM members want an advertising campaign promoting the importance of the AACM in order to increase small firm membership. Third, some members propose to segregate regions of the United States into sales territories, whereby only certain members have access to certain customers within a geographic area. Fourth, a group of socially conscious AACM firms want its members to boycott a large supplier that sources from nations with poor human rights records. Evaluate the business and legal (antitrust) implications of each of these proposals.

Answer and Explanation:

1. Business implication: if there are no trade barriers, it would enable them get better raw materials for their business and increase customer base

Legal anti trust implication: lobbying is illegal in some countries

2. Business implication: this would attract more manufacturers who were not previously members of the association which would in turn promote the goals of the association in improving trade amongst the manufacturers

Legal anti trust implication: associatio may be exposed to legal examination, example increased regulations

3 business implications:sales territories would invariably create a safe and secure investment for manufacturers such that there is less cost of marketing and campaigning as consumers are guaranteed

Legal implications: this is against anti trust laws and goes against free trade policies and illegal monopoly

4 business implications: boycotting this supplier could create an alternative source of raw materials which wouldn't be as efficient and even cost more

Legal implications: boycotting a large supplier such as this who might have a political backing might bring political retaliations from the supplier's political proxies who might create other regulations in the supplier's favour

hi.

i'm not sure about the answer, but, i would say c. *when the recipient was not included on the original email.*

hope this , well if it's right. uwu

merry christmas! ^-^