Pete Egeler
June 28, 2007, 04:01 PM
Discuss this among yourselves. :)
Saw this in a brief of today's Supreme Court actions...
"Court abandoned a 96-year-old ban on manufacturers and retailers setting price floors for products.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said that agreements on minimum prices are legal if they promote competition.
The ruling means that accusations of minimum pricing pacts will be evaluated case by case.
The Supreme Court declared in 1911 that minimum pricing agreements violate federal antitrust law."
Does this mean that it's "legal" to say.. "May not be sold for less than $XYZ" ?
Pete
Saw this in a brief of today's Supreme Court actions...
"Court abandoned a 96-year-old ban on manufacturers and retailers setting price floors for products.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said that agreements on minimum prices are legal if they promote competition.
The ruling means that accusations of minimum pricing pacts will be evaluated case by case.
The Supreme Court declared in 1911 that minimum pricing agreements violate federal antitrust law."
Does this mean that it's "legal" to say.. "May not be sold for less than $XYZ" ?
Pete
