Summary

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg United States v. Ward Baking Company…

We decide only that where the Government seeks an item of relief to which evidence adduced at trial may show that it is entitled, the District Court may not enter a 'consent' judgment without the actual consent of the Government. There is nothing in the language or legislative history of § 5 of the Clayton Act indicating that Congress intended to give a defendant the privilege of rejecting the bona fide demands of the Government and at the same time avoiding an adjudication on the merits of the complaint.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg United States v. Ward Baking Company…

The bakery companies then filed an amended motion for entry of consent judgment, containing two significant changes in their original proposal. Its scope was broadened to include all bakery products, not only bread and rolls, and to include all sales to the United States, not only to its naval installations in the Jacksonville area. Subsequently, at the hearing on the order to show cause, the companies agreed to increase, from three to five years, the period during which they were to submit sworn statements of noncollusion.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg United States v. Ward Baking Company…

The Government opposed entry of the amended proposed consent judgment on the ground that it still omitted two necessary items of relief:
' (1) a general injunction against conspiring to fix the price of bakery products to any third party other than the Government, and (2) an injunction against urging or suggesting to any seller of bakery products the quotation or charging of any price or other terms or conditions of sale of bakery products.' Despite these objections, the District Court entered the amended 'consent' judgment proposed by the companies.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature