Shopping on line can be easy, simple and save you lots of money. It can also take a lot of your time, frustrate you, and result in unwanted purchases. Now the same can be said for regular high street shopping, but with the vast opportunity presented by the Internet it will pay you to spend a few minutes reading this and understanding how to better optimize your Resale Price Maintenance shopping experience:
1. Compare - without doubt the biggest advantage that the Resale Price Maintenance offers shoppers today is the ability to compare thousands of Resale Price Maintenance at a time. This is a great thing, but not necessarily all the time! Too much can be daunting at times so take advantage of the great comparison sites and where possible let them do the hard work for you.
2. Research - if it has been said it will be on the internet. Ignorance is no longer a justifiable reason for buying the wrong thing. Take the time to research in detail everything that you could possible want to know about
3. Testimonials - don't know anybody that has bought a Resale Price Maintenance? Wrong! If the Resale Price Maintenance is good the internet will let you know. Use the Internet as a friend and get testimonials before you buy.
4. Questions - Got a question about Resale Price Maintenance then search the Forums, FAQ's, Blogs etc. Don't be afraid to ask .....
5. Reputation - Never heard of the company selling Resale Price Maintenance? Don't worry, no reason why you should know every company in the world, but you know someone that does! Use the internet to find out what people are saying about Resale Price Maintenance and build up a picture of their reputation for sales, returns, customer service, delivery etc.
6. Returns - still worried that even after all of the above your Resale Price Maintenance wont be what you want? Check out the returns policy. There is so much competition now that someone, somewhere is bound to offer the terms that you are comfortable with.
7. Feedback - happy with your Resale Price Maintenance then let people know, after all you are depending on others people input in your buying decision, so why not give a little back.
8. Security - check for the yellow padlock on the Resale Price Maintenance site before you buy, and the s after http:/ /i.e. https:// = a secure site
9. Contact - got a question about Resale Price Maintenance, or want to leave a comment then check out the sites contact page. Reputable companies have them and respond.
10. Payment - ready to pay for your Resale Price Maintenance, then use your credit card or PayPal! Be aware of companies that don't accept them, there may be genuine reasons but given the huge amount of choice you have when buying online there is no reason at all not to buy via credit card or PayPal.
Resale price maintenance is the practice whereby a manufacturer and its distributors agree that the latter will sell the former's product at certain prices (resale price maintenance), at or above a price floor (minimum resale price maintenance) or at or below a price ceiling (maximum resale price maintenance). These rules prevent resellers from
Competition#In economics and business too fiercely on price and thus driving down profits. Some argue that the manufacturer may do this because it wishes to keep resellers profitable, and thus keeping the manufacturer profitable. Others contend that minimum resale price maintenance, for instance, overcomes a failure in the market for distributional services by ensuring that distributors who invest in promoting the manufacturer's product are able to recoup the additional costs of such promotion in the price they charge consumers. Some manufacturers also defend resale price maintenance by saying it ensures fair returns, both for manufacturer and reseller and that governments do not have the right to interfere with freedom to make contracts without very good reason.
United Kingdom law
In 1955 in the United Kingdom the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report
Collective Discrimination - A Report on Exclusive Dealing , Aggregated Rebates and Other Discriminatory Trade Practices recommended that resale price maintenance when collectively enforced by manufacturers should be made illegal, but individual manufacturers should be allowed to continue the practice. The report was the basis for the Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1956, this specifically prohibited collective enforcement of resale price maintenance in the UK. Restrictive agreements had to be registered at the Restrictive Practices Court, and were considered on individual merit. In 1964 the Resale Prices Act was passed, which now considered all resale price agreements to be against public interest unless proven otherwise. However, practices such as the
Net Book Agreement continued to prevent discounting in some market segments.
In relation to competition, Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty are paramount over all member states' national laws relating to competition. The ECJ and the Commission have both held that Resale Price Maintenance is generally prohibited. UK law must apply this interpretation when dealing with inter member-state agreements between undertakings.
United States law
In
Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park and Sons, , the United States Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's holding that a massive minimum resale price maintenance scheme was unreasonable and thus offended Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The decision rested on the assertion that minimum resale price maintenance is indistinguishable in economic effect from naked horizontal price fixing by a cartel. Subsequent decisions characterized Dr Miles as holding that minimum resale price maintenance is unlawful
per se - that is, without regard to its impact on the marketplace or consumers.
During the Great Depression in the 1930s, a large number of
U.S. states began passing
fair trade laws. These were intended to protect independent retailers from the price-cutting competition of large
chain stores by authorizing resale price maintenance. Since these laws allowed vertical price fixing, they directly conflicted with the Sherman Antitrust Act, and Congress had to carve out a special exception for them with the Miller-Tydings Act of 1937.
The fair trade laws became widely unpopular after
World War II and the Miller-Tydings Act was eventually repealed by the Consumer Goods Pricing Act of 1975.
In 1968 the Supreme Court extended the "per se" rule against minimum resale price maintenance to maximum resale price maintenance, in
Albrecht v. Herald Co., . The Court opined that such contracts always limited the freedom of dealers to price as they wished. The Court also opined that the practice "may" channel distribution through a few large, efficient dealers, prevent dealers from offering essential services, and that the "maximum" price could instead become a minimum price.
In 1997, the Supreme Court overruled
Albrecht, in
State Oil v. Khan, .
Several decades after
Dr Miles, scholars began to question the assertion that minimum resale price maintenance, a vertical restraint, was the economic equivalent of a naked horizontal cartel. In 1960,
Lester G. Telser, an economist at the
University of Chicago, argued that manufacturers could employ minimum resale price maintenance as a tool to ensure that dealers engaged in the desired promotion of a manufacturer's product through local advertising, product demonstrations, and the like. Without such contractual restraints, Telser said, no frills distributors might "free ride" on the promotional efforts of full service distributors, thereby undermining the incentives of full service dealers to expend resources on promotion. Six years later, Robert Bork reiterated and expanded upon Telser's argument, contending that resale price maintenance was simply one form of contractual integration, analogous to complete vertical integration, that could overcome a failure in the market for distributional services. Bork also argued that non-price vertical restraints, such as exclusive territories, could achieve the same results.
Some scholars subsequently questioned Telser's theory, arguing that, by itself, minimum retail price maintenance cannot ensure that dealers will engage in an optimal level of promotion. These scholars argued that minimum price served as a contract enforcement mechanism, guaranteeing compliant dealers a stream of rents if they adhered to a manufacturer's promotional directives. However, some contended that the promotional efforts resulting from minimum price and other vertical restraints could actually reduce economic welfare by encouraging undue product differentiation and the resulting market power. Others claimed that manufacturers could achieve the same objective by less restrictive alternatives.
In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court held that non-price vertical restraints, such as vertically imposed exclusive territories, were to be analyzed under a fact-based "
rule of reason." In so doing, the Court embraced the logic of Bork and Telser as applied to such restraints, opining that, in a "purely competitive situation," dealers might free ride on each others' promotional efforts.
In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the repeal of Miller-Tydings implied that the Sherman Act's complete ban of vertical price fixing was again effective, and that even the
Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution could not shield California's liquor resale price maintenance regime from the reach of the Sherman Act.
California Liquor Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum, . Thus resale price maintenance was again no longer legal in the United States.
On June 28, 2007, the Supreme Court overruled
Dr. Miles, holding that such vertical price restraints are not
per se unlawful but, rather, must be judged under the "rule of reason."
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., Slip Op. No. 06–480 (Decided June 28, 2007).
See also
External links
- Nippop Article | Saihan Seido - Japan's Resale Price Maintenance System
- "Gadgets for Sale … or Not", Sean Cooper, slate.com, Dec. 22, 2006
Bibliography
- Bork, Robert H. (1966), "The Rule of Reason and the Per Se Concept: Price Fixing and Market Division", 75 Yale L. J. 373
- Frank H. Easterbrook (1984), "Vertical Arrangements Under The Rule of Reason", 53 Antitrust L. J. 135
- Goldberg, Victor (1979), "The Law and Economics of Vertical Restraints: A Relational Perspective", 58 Tex. L. Rev. 91
- Grimes, Warren (1992), "Spiff, Polish and Consumer Demand Quality: Vertical Price Restraints Revisited", 80 California Law Review 815
- Klein, Benjamin and Murphy, Kevin M. (1988), "Vertical Restraints As Contract Enforcement Mechanisms", 31 J. L. & Econ. 265
- Lopatka, John and Blair, Roger (1998), "The Albrecht Rule After Khan: Death Becomes Her", 74 Notre Dame Law Review 123-79
- Marvel, Howard (1994), "The Resale Price Maintenance Controversy: Beyond The Conventional Wisdom", 63 Antitrust L. J. 59
- Meese, Alan (1997), "Price Theory and Vertical Restraints: A Misunderstood Relation", 45 UCLA L. Rev. 143
- Meese, Alan (2004), "Property Rights and Intrabrand Restraints", 89 Cornell L. Rev. 553
- Robert Pitofsky (1983), "In Defense of Discounters: The No-Frills Case for a Per Se Rule Against Vertical Price Fixing", 71 Geo. L.J. 1487
- Pitofsky, Robert (1984), "Why Dr. Miles Was Right", 8 Regulation 27
- Roszkowski, Mark (1992), "Vertical Maximum Price Fixing: In Defense of Albrecht", 23 Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal, 209
- Roszkowski, Mark (1998), "State Oil Company v. Khan and the Rule of Reason: The End of Intrabrand Competition?" 66 Antitrust Law Journal 613-640
- Telser, Lester G. (1960), "Why Should Manufacturers Want Fair Trade", 3 J. L. & Econ. 86
Resale price maintenance is the practice whereby a manufacturer and its distributors agree that the latter will sell the former's product at certain prices (resale price maintenance), at or above a price floor (minimum resale price maintenance) or at or below a price ceiling (maximum resale price maintenance). These rules prevent resellers from
Competition#In economics and business too fiercely on price and thus driving down profits. Some argue that the manufacturer may do this because it wishes to keep resellers profitable, and thus keeping the manufacturer profitable. Others contend that minimum resale price maintenance, for instance, overcomes a failure in the market for distributional services by ensuring that distributors who invest in promoting the manufacturer's product are able to recoup the additional costs of such promotion in the price they charge consumers. Some manufacturers also defend resale price maintenance by saying it ensures fair returns, both for manufacturer and reseller and that governments do not have the right to interfere with freedom to make contracts without very good reason.
United Kingdom law
In 1955 in the
United Kingdom the
Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report
Collective Discrimination - A Report on Exclusive Dealing , Aggregated Rebates and Other Discriminatory Trade Practices recommended that resale price maintenance when collectively enforced by manufacturers should be made illegal, but individual manufacturers should be allowed to continue the practice. The report was the basis for the Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1956, this specifically prohibited collective enforcement of resale price maintenance in the UK. Restrictive agreements had to be registered at the Restrictive Practices Court, and were considered on individual merit. In 1964 the Resale Prices Act was passed, which now considered all resale price agreements to be against public interest unless proven otherwise. However, practices such as the Net Book Agreement continued to prevent discounting in some market segments.
In relation to competition, Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty are paramount over all member states' national laws relating to competition. The ECJ and the Commission have both held that Resale Price Maintenance is generally prohibited. UK law must apply this interpretation when dealing with inter member-state agreements between undertakings.
United States law
In
Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park and Sons, , the United States Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's holding that a massive minimum resale price maintenance scheme was unreasonable and thus offended Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The decision rested on the assertion that minimum resale price maintenance is indistinguishable in economic effect from naked horizontal price fixing by a
cartel. Subsequent decisions characterized Dr Miles as holding that minimum resale price maintenance is unlawful
per se - that is, without regard to its impact on the marketplace or consumers.
During the
Great Depression in the 1930s, a large number of U.S. states began passing
fair trade laws. These were intended to protect independent
retailers from the price-cutting competition of large chain stores by authorizing resale price maintenance. Since these laws allowed vertical
price fixing, they directly conflicted with the Sherman Antitrust Act, and Congress had to carve out a special exception for them with the Miller-Tydings Act of 1937.
The fair trade laws became widely unpopular after World War II and the Miller-Tydings Act was eventually repealed by the Consumer Goods Pricing Act of 1975.
In 1968 the Supreme Court extended the "per se" rule against minimum resale price maintenance to maximum resale price maintenance, in
Albrecht v. Herald Co., . The Court opined that such contracts always limited the freedom of dealers to price as they wished. The Court also opined that the practice "may" channel distribution through a few large, efficient dealers, prevent dealers from offering essential services, and that the "maximum" price could instead become a minimum price.
In 1997, the Supreme Court overruled
Albrecht, in
State Oil v. Khan, .
Several decades after
Dr Miles, scholars began to question the assertion that minimum resale price maintenance, a vertical restraint, was the economic equivalent of a naked horizontal cartel. In 1960,
Lester G. Telser, an economist at the University of Chicago, argued that manufacturers could employ minimum resale price maintenance as a tool to ensure that dealers engaged in the desired promotion of a manufacturer's product through local advertising, product demonstrations, and the like. Without such contractual restraints, Telser said, no frills distributors might "free ride" on the promotional efforts of full service distributors, thereby undermining the incentives of full service dealers to expend resources on promotion. Six years later,
Robert Bork reiterated and expanded upon Telser's argument, contending that resale price maintenance was simply one form of contractual integration, analogous to complete vertical integration, that could overcome a failure in the market for distributional services. Bork also argued that non-price vertical restraints, such as exclusive territories, could achieve the same results.
Some scholars subsequently questioned Telser's theory, arguing that, by itself, minimum retail price maintenance cannot ensure that dealers will engage in an optimal level of promotion. These scholars argued that minimum price served as a contract enforcement mechanism, guaranteeing compliant dealers a stream of rents if they adhered to a manufacturer's promotional directives. However, some contended that the promotional efforts resulting from minimum price and other vertical restraints could actually reduce economic welfare by encouraging undue product differentiation and the resulting market power. Others claimed that manufacturers could achieve the same objective by less restrictive alternatives.
In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court held that non-price vertical restraints, such as vertically imposed exclusive territories, were to be analyzed under a fact-based "
rule of reason." In so doing, the Court embraced the logic of Bork and Telser as applied to such restraints, opining that, in a "purely competitive situation," dealers might free ride on each others' promotional efforts.
In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the repeal of Miller-Tydings implied that the Sherman Act's complete ban of vertical price fixing was again effective, and that even the
Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution could not shield
California's liquor resale price maintenance regime from the reach of the Sherman Act.
California Liquor Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum, . Thus resale price maintenance was again no longer legal in the United States.
On June 28, 2007, the Supreme Court overruled
Dr. Miles, holding that such vertical price restraints are not
per se unlawful but, rather, must be judged under the "rule of reason."
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., Slip Op. No. 06–480 (Decided June 28, 2007).
See also
External links
- Nippop Article | Saihan Seido - Japan's Resale Price Maintenance System
- "Gadgets for Sale … or Not", Sean Cooper, slate.com, Dec. 22, 2006
Bibliography
- Bork, Robert H. (1966), "The Rule of Reason and the Per Se Concept: Price Fixing and Market Division", 75 Yale L. J. 373
- Frank H. Easterbrook (1984), "Vertical Arrangements Under The Rule of Reason", 53 Antitrust L. J. 135
- Goldberg, Victor (1979), "The Law and Economics of Vertical Restraints: A Relational Perspective", 58 Tex. L. Rev. 91
- Grimes, Warren (1992), "Spiff, Polish and Consumer Demand Quality: Vertical Price Restraints Revisited", 80 California Law Review 815
- Klein, Benjamin and Murphy, Kevin M. (1988), "Vertical Restraints As Contract Enforcement Mechanisms", 31 J. L. & Econ. 265
- Lopatka, John and Blair, Roger (1998), "The Albrecht Rule After Khan: Death Becomes Her", 74 Notre Dame Law Review 123-79
- Marvel, Howard (1994), "The Resale Price Maintenance Controversy: Beyond The Conventional Wisdom", 63 Antitrust L. J. 59
- Meese, Alan (1997), "Price Theory and Vertical Restraints: A Misunderstood Relation", 45 UCLA L. Rev. 143
- Meese, Alan (2004), "Property Rights and Intrabrand Restraints", 89 Cornell L. Rev. 553
- Robert Pitofsky (1983), "In Defense of Discounters: The No-Frills Case for a Per Se Rule Against Vertical Price Fixing", 71 Geo. L.J. 1487
- Pitofsky, Robert (1984), "Why Dr. Miles Was Right", 8 Regulation 27
- Roszkowski, Mark (1992), "Vertical Maximum Price Fixing: In Defense of Albrecht", 23 Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal, 209
- Roszkowski, Mark (1998), "State Oil Company v. Khan and the Rule of Reason: The End of Intrabrand Competition?" 66 Antitrust Law Journal 613-640
- Telser, Lester G. (1960), "Why Should Manufacturers Want Fair Trade", 3 J. L. & Econ. 86
Resale price maintenance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Resale price maintenance is the practice whereby a manufacturer and its distributors agree that the latter will sell the former's product at certain prices (resale price ...
resale price maintenance - Hutchinson encyclopedia article about ...
Agreement between a supplier, usually a manufacturer or wholesaler, and a retailer not to sell a product below a specific price. The idea behind this type of agreement is to ...
resale price maintenance - definition of resale price maintenance by ...
resale price maintenance n → vente au détail à prix imposé
e-Prints Soton - Resale price maintenance and horizontal cartel
Wheras non-price restrictions such as exclusive territories are often tolerated while Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) is rather unanimously forbidden, the economic analysis shows so ...
Resale Price Maintenance
5/22/08 1 Resale Price Maintenance Luc Peeperkorn DG Competition DG Competition European Commission European Commission Paris - May 2008 Paris - May 2008 The slides and speech ...
RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE
Resale Price Maintenance 1997 The OECD Competition Committee debated the use of resale price maintenance for publications and cultural products in February 1997.
Resale Price Maintenance and Horizontal Cartel Patrick Rey Thibaud ...
CMPO Working Paper Series No. 02/047 CMPO is funded by the Leverhulme Trust. Resale Price Maintenance and Horizontal Cartel Patrick Rey 1 and Thibaud Verge 2 1 I.D.E.I and GREMAQ ...
Oxera - Ruling within reason: a reprieve for resale price maintenance
Our economic appraisal of the competitive situation helps clients identify the opportunities and address the challenges. [more]
SSRN-Resale Price Maintenance by Gary Hewitt
SSRN-Resale Price Maintenance by Gary Hewitt. Paper Stats: Abstract Views: 934 Downloads: 166 Download Rank: 28576: Resale Price Maintenance
Resale price maintenance - What does RPM stand for? Acronyms and ...
Acronym Definition; RPM: Red Hat Package Manager: RPM: Revolutions Per Minute: RPM: Rabbits Per Minute (cartoon, Wallace & Gromit) RPM: Radial Power Monitor: RPM: Radiation Portal ...
