Litigative Economics

RRC has extensive experience in assisting attorneys in relating complex legal matters to economic, financial, and statistical evidence. RRC has been successful in the analysis of issues such as contract violations, product liability and warranty, theft of trade secrets, discrimination, monopolization, price-fixing, monopsony purchasing, boycotts, licensing restrictions, and damage theories. Often economic evidence suggests a line of argument, supported by sound economic theory, which narrows
the scope of a case and offers an efficient, effective avenue for successful litigation. 

Monopsony Purchasing

The consequences of monopsony purchasing are observed either as a reduced quantity of goods or services purchased and/or a price paid that is below internal valuation at the margin. Size of the purchasing market does not necessarily imply monopsony purchasing. The reduced quantity of goods or services purchased by a monopsonist yields predictable consequences in terms of production and final output decisions. Plaintiffs must often consider the importance of available factor substitutes, the price elasticity of supply, and the extent of redistribution of supplied products across other purchasers. The economic evidence required to support a monopsony suit can be a limiting factor. Occasionally, defendant firms maintain admissible evidence of internal valuations of inputs which may appear equal to the purchased price.