collusion

(redirected from Collusive agreement)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Financial, Encyclopedia.
Related to Collusive agreement: Collusive pricing, colluded

Collusion

An agreement between two or more people to defraud a person of his or her rights or to obtain something that is prohibited by law.

A secret arrangement wherein two or more people whose legal interests seemingly conflict conspire to commit Fraud upon another person; a pact between two people to deceive a court with the purpose of obtaining something that they would not be able to get through legitimate judicial channels.

Collusion has often been used in Divorce proceedings. In the past some jurisdictions made it extremely difficult for a couple to obtain a divorce. Often a "sweetheart" agreement would take place, whereby a husband or wife would commit, or appear to commit, Adultery or other acts that would justify a divorce. The public policy against collusive divorces is based on the idea that such actions would conflict with the effective administration by society of laws on marriage and divorce and would undermine marriage as a stabilizing force in society.

Virtually all jurisdictions have adopted no-fault divorce statutes or laws that allow a couple to obtain a divorce without traditional fault grounds, such as adultery or cruel and inhuman treatment. Because of this development, collusive divorces should diminish in number, since it will no longer be necessary for persons seeking a divorce to resort to such measures.

The fundamental societal objection to collusion is that it promotes dishonesty and fraud, which, in turn, undermines the integrity of the entire judicial system.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

collusion

n. where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating. Collusion can include secret price or wage fixing, secret rebates, or pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint ends. It can range from small-town shopkeepers or heirs to a grandma's estate, to gigantic electronics companies or big league baseball team owners. (See: fraud)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

collusion

a deceitful or unlawful agreement. In England it is not a bar to an action of divorce. In Scotland it is still a defence to an action of divorce.
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006

COLLUSION, fraud. An agreement between two or more persons, to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law; as, for example, where the husband and wife collude to obtain a divorce for a cause not authorized by law. It is nearly synonymous with @covin. (q.v.)
     2. Collusion and fraud of every kind vitiate all acts which are infected with them, and render them void. Vide Shelf. on Mar. & Div. 416, 450; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 130, 133; 2 Greenl. Ev. Sec. 51; Bousq. Dict. de Dr. mot Abordage.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
References in periodicals archive ?
In this section, we consider two questions concerning the existence of such collusive agreements between firms.
To summarize, if a collusive marker is to be based exclusively on the analysis of a price process, then we can formulate the hypothesis that in the collusive agreement phase the price variance would be, on average, lower than in the competition phase.
(30) The purpose of the Sherman Act is to prevent businesses from creating collusive agreements. (31) To prevail under the Sherman Act, plaintiffs must prove the defendants had an agreement, trade was unreasonably restrained as a result of the agreement, and that the plaintiffs were injured.
Similarly, collusive agreements between content producers and distributors have affected the traditional context of competition.
To protect and preserve the established collusive agreement, the stockholders of each firm must design the convertible debt contracts so that if cheating occurs, the debt holders will convert and capture a substantial portion of the cheating firm's onetime profit.
Presumably, if demand were uncertain but there was perfect monitoring, collusive agreements would be no more difficult to enforce than if demand were known with certainty.
Effectively, the noncooperative equilibrium is characterized by the trigger price, [??]; the punishment period, T; and the resultant collusive equilibrium vector of livestock quantities, [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], when, given the symmetric discount factor [beta], no participant can increase her expected [V.sub.i]{[q.sup.IC]) by unilateral deviation from the collusive agreement. The equilibrium present discounted value of packer i is thus a function of [??] and T, that is, [V.sup.*.sub.i] ([??], T) for i = 1, ..., n.
Intuitively, the ability of a cross-license to support a profitable, collusive outcome, despite the lack of any enforceable collusive agreement, can be understood as follows.
Yet the economics literature, strictly interpreted, would imply that a collusive agreement should not fear entry in the presence of positive sunk costs.
In the absence of explicit admissions of guilt or other forms of direct evidence (e.g., eyewitness accounts, tape recordings, etc.), prosecutors traditionally have relied upon circumstantial evidence to infer the presence of collusive activity.(1) In general, evidence pertaining to economic factors that may either facilitate the formation and maintenance of a collusive agreement or signal the existence of such an agreement has been used to argue the presence of a conspiracy in such cases.(2) Such circumstantial evidence often is supported with an econometric (or statistical) analysis of observed prices that purports to show some significant increase over the alleged conspiracy period that is left "unexplained" by other market forces.
Nonprice competition, as occurred between the commercial airlines prior to deregulation,(18) and, more recently, amongst the parties to an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of antiknock gasoline additives,(19) raises the cost of reaching a collusive agreement, increases the chances that cheating will go unpunished, and makes it more likely that the agreement will be detected.