Review of law sciences

Review of law sciences
(2020) 130-139 
13 
of advertising as a means to obtain monopoly power and consequently it causes strong brand 
loyalty to promoted product. See: Driver, John. "Advertising and Competition." Advertising 
and marketing law & practice. September/October, 1985. London, England: Cass, 1985. p.3. 
19.
Nelson, Philip. "Advertising as Information." Journal of Political Economy 82, no. 
4 (1974): 729-54. 
20.
The advertisement about credence goods is the most dangerous type of advertising 
and mostly tends to mislead consumers. See: Darby, Michael R., and Edi Karni. "Free 
Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud." The Journal of Law and Economics 16, no. 
1 (April 1, 1973): 67-88. doi:10.1086/466756. 
21.
Driver, John. "Advertising and Competition." Advertising and marketing law & 
practice. September/October, 1985. London, England: Cass, 1985. p.2. 
22.
Rhonda, Smith. "Competition law and policy — theoretical underpinnings." 
Infrastructure regulation and market reform, The Australian Competition and Consumer 
Commission (ACCC) and the Public Utility Research Centre (PURC), November 1997, 16-
26. p.17. 
23.
"The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics." Goodreads. Accessed March 
16, 
2017. 
http://www.goodreads.com/work/best_book/3044998-the-foundations-of-
modern-austrian-economics; Competition and Entrepreneurship. Accessed March 16, 2017. 
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago /C/bo27304815.html. 
24.
Jordan, Ellen R., and Paul H. Rubin. "An Economic Analysis of the Law of False 
Advertising." The Journal of Legal Studies 8, no. 3 (Iyun 1, 1979): 527-53. 
25.
See Petty, Ross D. The Impact of Advertising Law on Business and Public Policy. 
Westport, Conn. ; London: Praeger, 1992. p.131-132. 
26.
The case of U-Haul Int`l v. Jartran, Inc. proved this theory.⁠ In this case, a new 
entrant, Jartran made advertising that falsely showed its vehicle to be larger and more 
attractive. The established firm, U-Haul sued on awarding $40 million and used the 
bankruptcy proceeding against Jartran. However, FTC brought the suit and prevent the 
bankruptcy of Jartran, because it was a "weak" new entrant in the market. Petty explained 
that FTC used a "competitive ploy" to keep new entrant in particular market and do not allow 
to plaintiff to increase its monopoly power. Otherwise, if Jartran were bankrupt, consumers 
would lost new entrant in a market lacking in significant competition. See: "U-Haul Intern., 
Inc. v. Jartran, Inc., 522 F. Supp. 1238 (D. Ariz. 1981)." Justia Law. Accessed March 16, 
2017. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/522/1238/1519455/. 
27.
Rhodes, Andrew, and Chris M. Wilson. "False Advertising." MPRA Paper, July 18, 
2016. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/72693/. 
28.
Coase, R. H. "Advertising and Free Speech." The Journal of Legal Studies 6, no. 1 
(January 1, 1977): 1-34. doi:10.1086/467560. 
29.
Murphy, Kathryn. "Can the Budweiser Frogs Be Forced to Sing a New Tune?: 
Compelled Commercial Counter-Speech and the First Amendment." Virginia Law Review 
84, no. 6 (1998): 1195-1224. doi:10.2307/1073697. p.1198. 
30.
Sullivan, Kathleen M. "Cheap Spirits, Cigarettes, and Free Speech: The 
Implications of 44 Liquormart." The Supreme Court Review 1996 (January 1, 1996): 123-
61. doi:10.1086/scr.1996.3109728. p. 156. 

---