How does the government "enforce price-fixing agreements"?

Maybe I misunderstood, but it looks like these price-fixing agreements are just parts of a contract between manufacturers and retailers.

E.G I manufacturer Dile-Widgits. You want a contract to buy 1000 Dile-Widgits from me to sell in your store, AA-Mart. I, as a the manufacturer, put in the contract that, if you want to sell Dile-Widgits, you must sell them for $10 each. You, as the retailer, can take the deal or leave it. If you take the deal and then break the contract (say, sell them for $9) I can sue you for breach of contract. No special government involvement necessary; that's business as usual.

But BEFORE this ruling, the government would have swooped in and declared that I couldn't put that "$10 each" clause in the contract because there was this special "anti-price-fixing" rule.

It seems like this is just one less "special rule" that the government is imposing on what business can do.


EDITED:
I should probably add that I don't particularly like price-fixing and it seems like in most cases it would be against the interests of the manufacturer. But, unless its a special case (which this ruling made allowances for), I don't see why the government would have the right to make some special rule against what sort of agreements manufacturers and retailers can make.

Imagine trying to enforce pricing on eBay. I, too, think they may have opened a can of worms on the enforcement side.

It'll be interesting to see how discounters' stocks, such as e-Bay, respond to this ruling.

But this wouldn't be the first time we see laws made with no possibility of consistent enforcement. .

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Well from what I know (which ain't much, I admit) before this ruling, the government only "swooped" when a retailer took the manufacturer to court, which will be the case with this new ruling as well.

__________________
Big Number of 2008
8,217,246
Obama's Margin of Victory

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson

THis is a win for the free market. The govt should be telling business how to run. In this case, a retailer who doesnt like the business practices of their supplier do not have to sell their product. If enough businesses do this, they supplier will have to change its product or go out of business. More likely a comeptitior will sell the retailer the same product at a cheaper price. Thus the free market regulates itself. The only thing the court should be deciding is whether the law is legal or not, not whether its good or bad policy.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

In that case I suppose there's no additional work for the gov either way. But, in general, I think I support the idea of their being fewer rules on what agreements businesses can and cannot make.

Just like you're wishing it was Bush's fault, and you're wishing you actually had a clue about anything...

The President is not responsible for the actions of the other 2 branches of government. Learn that and accept it as fact.

The President is also not responsible for everything which happens which you do not like.

I don't like Bush either, but when you start blaming him for everything, you only look like a fool.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Right Goober, and the Supreme Court isn't in Bush's back pocket, as if.

This is the result of neo-conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, a fault of GW, and a Congress not willing to draw blood during the confirmation hearings.

__________________
Big Number of 2008
8,217,246
Obama's Margin of Victory

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson

No it isnt my friend. Not anymore than it was in Clinton's pocket.

You may not realize this, but the USSC doesnt report to the POTUS.
What an incredibly ignorant crock of shit!

Forget it - talking to you on this would be futile. Go on in your own little fantasy land my friend. When you're ready, the Reality Bus will be waiting for you.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Oooo

__________________
Big Number of 2008
8,217,246
Obama's Margin of Victory

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson

Isn't this a case of activist judges? This exception to the rule should have been decided by the congress, not by the USSC.



Wheres the whining repubs? Oh right its only activist if its liberal.

How is this activist?
The Court created a restriction in 1911. Now the Court has decided to overturn that restriction.

It's not like this ruling imposes anything on anyone. Just the opposite, in fact.
It merely says that one sort of contractual agreement (the sort that would include the specification of the retail price) is now OK whereas before it would have been forbidden.

Many manufacturer's do not permit their products to be sold as new on eBay, and are pretty militant about enforcing that. A retailer caught doing so would likely lose his dealership rather quickly...

One upside I can think of, is that now small mom and pop's won't have to compete on price, now they can compete on location, location, location.

__________________
Big Number of 2008
8,217,246
Obama's Margin of Victory

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson

True.
This is probably worse news for big box stores like Wal-Mart than for little retailers. The mega-stores are the ones more likely to drop prices below MSRP because they're the ones who can make it up in volume.
Now if the manufacturer sets a standard sales price, he'll be effectively leveling the playing field.

The law created the restriction, since a contract declaring exactly how a product may be sold, restricts trade, and is null and void.

The law is pretty clear, monopoly power is not required to make these things illegal. All that needs to proven is that it restricts trade, and it does exactly that. Instead of the market deciding the price, the manufacturer is dictating the price. The court felt that wasn't effective, and didn't fit with their ideology, so they pulled a new ruling out of their nether regions.