Re: Supreme Court decision and guitar prices
- From: John Sorell <j.sorellCHEESE@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Jun 2007 22:31:52 GMT
Greg Thomas <gjthomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1183152300.075188.147420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Jun 29, 7:04 am, "Robert L. Abramowitz" <abramow...@xxxxxxx> wrote:manufacturers
Yesterday in a 5-4 decision the Bush Supreme Court allowed
noto set minimum selling prices on their goods in some cases (it's going
to be case-by-case as to whether this practice "stifles competition",
doubt leading to a mess of conflicting court decisions).
I'm not talking about minimum ADVERTISED price; it's minimum SELLING
price. It'll be interesting to see what CFM and other makers do in
light of this decision.
Interesting. IIRC, about 30 years ago it wasn't uncommon in the
garment business for manufacturers to set minimum retail prices (think
Levi Strauss.) I also seem to recall that that practice was shot down
about 25 years - not sure if by some court or if by the FTC. Now we've
gone full circle. So much for a free market.
Greg
I understand that Collings had agreements with their retailers on the
maximum discount they would permit. I also understand that some retailers
would violate that maximum discount but would discuss the need for non
disclosure with the customer. How do they get away with that policy?
John
.
- References:
- Supreme Court decision and guitar prices
- From: Robert L. Abramowitz
- Re: Supreme Court decision and guitar prices
- From: Greg Thomas
- Supreme Court decision and guitar prices
- Prev by Date: Re: Mahogany OM guitars
- Next by Date: Re: Slack Key in Orinda, CA, July 1, 1-3PM
- Previous by thread: Re: Supreme Court decision and guitar prices
- Next by thread: Re: Supreme Court decision and guitar prices
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|