Mr Justice McReynolds:The retailer, after buying, could, if he chose, give away his purchase or sell it at any price he saw fit, or not sell it at all, his course in these respects being affected only by the fact that he might by his action incur the displeasure of the manufacturer who could refuse to make further sales to him, as he had the undoubted right to do.'
The above quote is the foundation of the so-called "colgate rights", granted by the famous United States v Colgate case that was the beginning of the undoing of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It doesn't matter how much we agree......our high court has decided that a manufacturer or distributor has the right to "do business with whomever it chooses". In so doing, it can set whatever rules it pleases for the process of that "doing business".
I doubt there are few, if any, dealers on this board who have fought this battle like I have with a scuba manufacturer. We didn't just complain.....we carried the battle until they exercised their "colgate rights". The bottom line is simple....if you displeasure a major scuba manufacturer, they will terminate the relationship. They never present a dealer agreement that specifies a contract obligation to price according to their plan. They simply establish, without your agreement and without discussion, the rules for doing business with them. Each local scuba store owner has to evaluate the damage that will be done if a particular manufacturer chooses to exercise their "colgate rights", and each must fight this fight to a degree that is within their personal "pain level".
1. You may disagree - but just like anything else in this world - when you buy something (pay your hard earned money for it,) you own it don't you. When a retailer buys a product, pays the manufacturer - he/she owns it. He or she can do whatever they want with it - upto and including giving it away free. If the manufacturer holds ownership - meaning the product can be returned by the retailer to the manufacturer for full credit - then I would agree that the retailer can be held accountable for pricing.
No scuba company will attempt to force you to sell a regulator at a certain price or to advertise it at a certain price. They are way to smart for this. If you buy a regulator today, you can sell it or advertise it tomorrow for any price you choose. However, if you do so in violation of the rules they establish, they can refuse to sell you a regulator tomorrow. In so doing.....like it or not....they are exercising their "colgate rights". You see, they never engage in the argument as to the ownership of a regulator in your possession...they admit it is yours to sell, trade, barter as you choose. The threat is that if you displease them, they will not ship you any more tomorrow. It is not a part of their contract with the dealer....it is part of their DNA! In so doing, they completely control the dealer.
The problem is MAP pricing makes it harder for retailers to move product because they can not advertise it at a price to lure in buyers. If Walmart for example were held to a MAP price on Coke... you'd never go to Walmart to get 3 - 12 packs for $10.00. You may actually decide not to buy coke at $4.99 a 12 pack. You may switch brands. In this example, MAP hurts you because you now feel priced out of purchasing Coke and even though you like Coke you may not drink it anymore. Coke sales plummet and so do Walmarts.
I totally agree with the above statement. It is basic consumer economics 101.
2. Yes, they have the right to control distribution - and even their own pricing - but not a right to dictate to a business owner how much that owner can sell it for. That is where the problem comes in. As a retailer, I don't question their prices to me. They get their money one way or the other. If they can set their price... common sense alone says I should be able to set mine. We are each privately owned businesses buying products. They buy raw goods and make a product. The manufacturer of those raw goods is not dictating to them how much they can resell their product for. Think about it.
Well, this has nothing to do with common sense. It has only to do with the law (the Sherman Act) and what the US Supreme Court says that it means. Remember, the Congress of the United States has had ample opportunity (nearly 100 years since Colgate, and dozens and dozens of cases after that one) to step in and mitigate the damage done by the Supreme Court in this regard. They have turned down EVERY opportunity to say to the Supreme Court "YOU ARE WRONG!" Regardless of what the Supreme Court ruled in regard to price controls, they have completely, absolutely passed on every opportunity to change or clarify the situation. NOT EVEN ONE PEEP from our elected representatives after Leegin v PSKS, the first of the cases to deal with the vertical price controls THAT REALLY IMPACT CONSUMERS and the heavy-handed handling of dealers by manufacturers. Apparently, the US Congress agrees with the Supreme Court.
All of this aside, minimum adverting price programs and minimum retail prices programs are a bad idea. But, they apparently aren't illegal. Above all, that is why you get no response from your state Attorney General.
Phil Ellis