Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWas the US Supreme Court right to allow manufacturers and distributors to create resale price agreements?
Results so far:
| No | 51% | 37 votes | Total: 72 votes | |
| Yes | 49% | 35 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesSocial optimum. For the overall good of society before individuals and groups. It seems that government intervention has led to another case of economic inefficiency. The minimum price that has resulted from these agreement would be a price level higher than equilibrium, increasing supply of goods and damping demand for it - an overall effect of "shortage" of demand.
It is similar to a cartel, which has all along been acknowledged as the devil to market competitiveness. The immediate casualties are consumers. Consumers suffer from higher prices and reduced consumers' surplus, from which manufacturers and distributors gain at their expense.
The market should work as such that only the more competitive firms remain in the heat. That is, companies with the lowest costs ought to have the first right to stay before others. Resale price agreements creates a lax in which firms stay competitive in reducing costs if they know that they can still survive comfortably without doing so.
In fact, manufacturers and distributors may hardly have the reason to smile upon over the long run. A rise in economic profits urge an influx of other competitors into the market, coupled with the already declined demand, may worsen their situation ever than before. People in these sectors might even get laid off in the extreme case.
Nature runs best when left to run on its own. In filling a hole in the ground from digging another hole, it only serves to create more problems, somewhere else.
Learn more about this author, Lyndon W.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Was the US Supreme Court right to allow manufacturers and distributors to create resale price agreements? Well, it was a 5 - 4 decision so there must be good argument for both sides of the opinion, with a slight edge supporting the affirmative.
Please consider the following point of view that agrees with the majority vote of the US Supreme Court.
First of all it should be noted that the ruling does not give free reign to any manufacturer to restrain trade or fix prices. Justices Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens dissented because they worried about 96 years of precedent - what happens to all of that earlier legal advice and rulings that were decided using that precedent? If strict precedent were to be ignored in this case, how would that endanger the reliability of precedent in future cases? Serious concerns, but not focused upon the matter of free trade and price fixing - the court agrees that such practices are still illegal.
There remains a test of reason that all manufacturers are obliged to meet when they implement any price agreement, expressed or implied, with their distribution channels. The majority opinion simply makes much needed room for the 'proper' use of these agreements and puts considerable weight in favor of those that increase competition and keep prices low to the consumer for the long term, instead of operating purely for the short term.
Justice Kennedy, in writing the majority opinion, pointed to the volumes of current economic literature that justifies the use of resale price agreements as a pro-competitive tactic. He also illustrated that second-best alternatives usually add cost and risk to the manufacturer, leading to the eventual price increase at the consumer level.
The argument in favor of allowing resale price agreements, when it can be demonstrated as beneficial to business and consumers, is compelling. It gives manufacturers the freedom to practice under a sensible business model and does nothing to prevent the vigorous prosecution of those perverting the system.
Copy and paste this link to your browser for a detailed legal analysis of this issue.
www.metrocorpc ounsel.com/current.p hp?artType=view&artM onth=November&artYea r=2007&EntryNo=7284
Learn more about this author, Ken Reetz.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Business News & Issues
- The US 7-11 convenience store chain adopts the Kwik-E-Mart name and products from the Simpson's TV show: Good business or a new low for American culture?
- Was Whole Foods CEO John Mackey using business smarts or acting unethically when he promoted his company through an online alias?
- Is Wal-Mart as bad as its opponents say it is?
- Can eBay overtake Craigslist and dominate the free classified ad market?
- Have the benefits of Sarbanes-Oxley been worth the implementation costs?
- Are iPhone futures a bad or good investment?
