Scuba
Contributor
After a quick read of the judgment in USA vs. Scuba Retailers Association Inc. and not being an expert or attorney. It appears that this is the type of case where everbody wins and nothing changes.
For example: it would appear that some manufacturers who refuse to warrant a product sold by mail or internet would be found in violation of -
But it could be argued that they are simply exercising their right to determine how and which products they will warrant.
As if this vague language was'nt enough.
This vauge language leaves everything to interpretation. It costs a lot of money and effort to get others to interpret things your way, either in court or politically. So the end result in a small niche industries like this is usually that the beat goes on.
Another issue with respect to business practices is the fact of minimum enforcement of existing laws. The agencies responsible for this are underfunded ( not always coincidentally or unintentioanally ). Many of the persons in charge come from business and to business they return. The advantages and implications are obvious.
As long as a manufacturer is allowed to refuse to sell to a legal retail establishment, the intent of the price fixing laws is practically unenforceable, in my opinion. Unless consumer associations join in to provide financial dis-incentive and political pressure.
For example: it would appear that some manufacturers who refuse to warrant a product sold by mail or internet would be found in violation of -
IV
PROHIBITED CONDUCT
Defendant is enjoined and restrained from:
A. Taking any action to encourage, advise, recommend, or require any person to sell its product only through retail dive stores;
But it could be argued that they are simply exercising their right to determine how and which products they will warrant.
As if this vague language was'nt enough.
V
LIMITING CONDITIONS
A. Nothing in Section IV shall prohibit defendant from unilaterally declining to deal with any mail-order dealer for bonafide reasons; provided, the burden shall be on defendant to prove in any enforcement proceeding initiated by plaintiff that any such decision by defendant was made unilaterally and for bona fide reasons, and was not anti-competitive in purpose or nature.
This vauge language leaves everything to interpretation. It costs a lot of money and effort to get others to interpret things your way, either in court or politically. So the end result in a small niche industries like this is usually that the beat goes on.
Another issue with respect to business practices is the fact of minimum enforcement of existing laws. The agencies responsible for this are underfunded ( not always coincidentally or unintentioanally ). Many of the persons in charge come from business and to business they return. The advantages and implications are obvious.
As long as a manufacturer is allowed to refuse to sell to a legal retail establishment, the intent of the price fixing laws is practically unenforceable, in my opinion. Unless consumer associations join in to provide financial dis-incentive and political pressure.