The Supreme Court`s decision to reduce cartel and abuse of dominance proceedings with respect to the right to maintain resale prices to the normal standard means that applicants making such claims under federal law must demonstrate that anti-competitive effects on the market outweigh any effectiveness and commercial benefits of the agreements. In practice, this change makes cases much more difficult and costly. a. Definitely true. In Leegin`s decision, the dissenting judge Breyer predicted that the Court of Justice`s decision would likely cause “significant legal turbulence” as courts gain experience studying the impact of these restrictions on competition using the “rule of reason” standard. Legal turbulence can be translated into uncertainty for businesses. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that non-tariff vertical restrictions, such as vertically imposed exclusive territories. B, were not to be analysed on a “rule of reason” based on facts. The Court thus turned to the logic of Bork and Telser, applied to such restrictions, and considered the fact that, in a “strictly competitive situation”, merchants could free up the advertising efforts of the other. According to a press release issued on 18 September 2020 by the Danish Competition Authority (the Authority), the Danish design company GUBI A/S entered into a transaction with the AMF and fined DKK 6 million (about 800,000 euros) for the resale price (…) According to a press release from the Federal Competition Authority (FCA), the Austrian Court of Cartels ruled on 24 September 2020 that the maker of musical instruments Roland Germany GmbH (“Roland Germany”) has breached competition rules with minimum resale agreements (…) At Leegin, the Supreme Court, before considering its substantive analysis, noted that, in itself, the rule against price maintenance stems from the common law rule that a general restriction on alienation is normally invalid. A resale price maintenance contract is in fact a restriction of disposal, because the supplier sells a credit to a merchant and tells the merchant that he must sell that property at a price that has at least a certain amount.
And as the Supreme Court explained, concerns have developed about restrictions on the disposal of property and real estate: “The rule was born from restrictions that have alienated real estate from the commercial flow for generations.” Six years later, Robert Bork reiterated Telser`s argument that maintaining the resale price was only a form of contractual integration, like full vertical integration, which could be overcome by a failure in the distribution services market. Mr Bork also pointed out that non-tariff vertical restrictions, such as exclusive zones. B, could get the same results. Resale price maintenance contracts or (RPM) are agreements wherers agree that they will sell products or products at prices determined above or above the price floor (minimum regime) or at a price cap (maximum regime).  Under the Cartwright Act (CA), vertical price restrictions are in themselves illegal. As far as competition is concerned, Article 101 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFUE) are at the forefront of the national competition legislation of all Member States. Both the European Court of Justice and the European Commission ruled that the maintenance of the resale price was generally prohibited. British law must apply this interpretation when it comes to inter-state agreements between companies. [Citation required] Q4. And if a manufacturer asks me to agree not to resell its products below a minimum price, and I decide not to accept the request. What are the consequences? Manufacturers and distributors have long been told that resale price maintenance agreements or vertical price restrictions – agreements in which manufacturers and distributors set the minimum price a distributor can charge for the manufacturer`s product – are out of bounds.