Would the banning of outside food and beverages be legal? Is it not monopoly?

Question

Would the banning of outside food and beverages be legal as it is the same as banning someone if they are wearing a Nike shirt? Would it not count as Monopoly

Would the banning of outside food and beverages in movie theater be legal, as it is the same as banning someone if they are wearing a Nike shirt? Would it not count as Monopoly

Answer 1

No. A private entity is entitled to dictate what can and can not happen on its property. It's the same as you saying what can and can not happen in your own house. It's unfair, but that's just the way it is.

It's not a monopoly because the entity in question is not blocking competition. You are more than free to eat your food outside of the complex. What the complex is really doing is acting in its own interest on its private property, which is allow under the law.

Hope that helps.

Answer 2

When you talk about banning goods/services entering a country, to some extent you may call it a monopoly but what's more appropriate is to call it a protectionist mechanism (protectionism). With the advent of globalisation, free trade becomes a prevailing economic concept. Under globalisation, countries signees of the world trade organisation treaty of 1995 (Uruguay round) should gradually incoporate free trading in their country. In other words, USA should allow China to have an access of of the American market. Whereby, Chinese entrepreneurs/businessmen can sell their products/services in the US. Theoretically, under the WTO Agreement, US should not impose protectionism policies, levy taxes, should not have preferential trading with other countries etc. In reality however, the US and other member signess of WTO impose unfair trading policies like giving higher taxes to foreign commodity, banning some product of other countries and the likes. The rationale behind this mechanism is for the government to protect their domestic/local business.

One case is the issue between Chinese shoe manufacturers and the European Union. Because the EU is threatened of Chinese's cheap shoes sold in the European Union, EU imposed anti-dumping taxes to the Chinese shoe manufacturers. As a result, the chinese shoe manufacturers pay higher taxes, have a certain quota of allowed number of shoes to sell in EU etc.

Your question about monopoly on the other hand is more of an offshoot when one country imposes protectionist policy. Upon regulation of foreign good's entry to one country we allow domestic/local products to prosper by providing them a greater market share. This is not however the strict definition of a monopoly because strictly speaking, monopoly is when a certain industry controls the production of one commodity (there exists no competition).

Finally, your question about the legality of banning products/services whether its legal or not. Suppose to be, such an act is illegal because its a deliberate violation of the WTO agreement of free trade but while it is illegal, countries are given time to gradually elminate their protectionist and unfair trade policy. Meaning to say, that for a certain period of time, countries who are signees of WTO agreement can still impose quota, bann good/services from other countries upon realisation that these are detrimental to their domestic economy etc. 3 decades from now however, these policies should have been eliminated.
If you need more information you can always email me.

Answer 3

You wouldnt eat your Kentucky Fried Chicken in the local McDonalds. or would you.
But personally i feel movies theaters should allow outside snacks to be brought in. Its not like your watching the movie for free. you are just chosing a better or less expensive snack (they do it so they make more profit) to munch while watching the movie you paid for. but like one person mentioned, you are entitled to eat your prepurchased food before you go in.