Nasza strona wykorzystuje cookies , aby zapewnić jakość usług. Kontynuując przeglądanie zgadzasz się z na użycie plików cookies. Więcej informacji

Resale Price Maintenance Agreement

FE Sports is alleged to have been involved in the continuation of the sale of conservation prices - The ACCC has filed an action in the Federal Court against B-K Holdings (QLD) Pty Ltd, which acts as FE Sports, arguing that the resale price for the wholesale supply of cycling and sports products is maintained in (...) The CNMC opens a formal review procedure for possible anti-competitive practices by ISDIN, S.A. The potential illegal behaviour would be to set resale prices online, at least for sunscreen products. Currently, the CNMC is studying possible restrictions on competition by manufacturers (...) The design company is paying a fine of DKK 6 million for indicative prices - GUBI A/S, a Danish furniture and lighting design company, has reached an agreement and accepted a fine of 6 million DKK for violating Danish competition law. The company contacted the authorities on the (...) In today`s economy, manufacturers (and suppliers) often enter into resale price maintenance contracts with distributors and retailers. These are agreements that set the minimum price at which a reseller can sell the producer`s product. This is a vertical pricing. In 2007, the Supreme Court radically changed the landscape by deciding Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.

(Kay`s Closet). The question before the Supreme Court of Leegin was whether a nearly 100-year-old precedent (Dr. Miles Medical Co.) should apply and establish the rule that maintaining the resale price per se was illegal under the Sherman Act. But there is one topic that is not only frequent, but also a great controversy among cartel lawyers and commentators: are price agreements between manufacturers and distributors (or retailers) a violation of the cartel? It is generally a sale-price-maintenance contract and it is not certain that it is contrary to the law regarding cartels and abuse of dominant position. Currently, a case is pending concerning RPM in the online domain. In M/s Jasper Infotech Private Limited v. Ms. Kaff Applicances (India) Pvt. Ltd.5, the CCI prima facie found that "the counterparty entered into an agreement/agreement with its dealers under which the distributors obtained the "market price list (MOP) for their product." Such an agreement hinders the ability of distributors to compete with the price of the product.

The Commission considers that such a requirement of MOP by counterparty to its operators and the insistence on respecting the MOP price regime is contrary to Section 3, paragraph 4, point e), which is read in paragraph 3, paragraph 1, of the law." concerted agreements or practices between a supplier and a distributor to set, directly or indirectly, a fixed or minimum price price or a minimum price level that the distributor must meet when reselling a product or service to its customers. A provision to maintain the resale price is generally considered a marked restriction. With respect to contractual provisions or concerted practices that directly justify the resale price, the restriction is clear. However, the maintenance of the resale price can also be obtained indirectly: z.B. by setting the distribution margin or the maximum discount that the distributor can grant from a prescribed price level; subordinating supplier rebates or reimbursement of advertising costs to a certain price level, conditioning the resale price imposed on competitors` resale prices, or threatening, warning or even sanctioning a trader who does not respect a certain price level (for example, sanctions). B delays or suspension of deliveries or termination of contracts). European Commission There was a way around an offence known as the Colgate exception, in which a supplier unilaterally developed a policy where its product must be sold at a specified price, or it would terminate distributors. This well-known exception was based on the idea that, in most cases, companies are not required to deal with a particular company and may refuse to negotiate with merchants if they wish.