narcT:Symantics are fun, but they do not hide the "intent" of manufacturers to circumvent the law (and effectively control prices so they can not be varied in accordance with market demand).
Here is the essence....the Sherman Anti-Trust act prevents "agreements, vertical or horizonal" to regulate price. An agreement requires two parties reaching an agreement, verbal or oral, or otherwise. All schemes that involve "agreements" have been deemed PER SE illegal and decisions to this effect have been upheld since 1890 with complete unanamity by the appeals courts and by the Supreme Court. If a manufacturers policy does not require an agreement with the dealer (thereby being unilateral) it CANNOT violate the Sherman Anit-Trust act. It may not be fair...but the Sherman Anit-Trust Act does not regulate fairness.....it regulates "agreements" between two parties (plus a few other things like group boycotts) with regard to prices.
If the manufacturer does not reach an "agreement" with the supplier, they are not in violation as the case law now stands. Of course, a petitioner could make an argument that the threat of loss of the dealership is in effect a passive "agreement", one to which he was forced to participate in order to sell the product. Doing so would be admitting that they are a party to the "agreement", which places THEM in violation of the Sherman Anit-Trust Act. Being in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act has serious and specified fines.....from memory, I think its minimum $25,000 for an individual and minimum $300,000 for a corporation....this is from memory and is probably wrong.
Once again, this is all my opinion. Thanks.
Phil Ellis
Dive Sports Online
www.divesports.com
(800) 601-DIVE