DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42346#0131
OPEN-PRICE ASSOCIATION
119
“And the result is, the price of everybody is 'so and
so’.”
“Naturally, but we don’t agree they shall be, we just
exchange views and let prices take care of themselves.”
This set of men is much franker than the former. They
do admit they come together to help conditions, that they
freely discuss prices, and, so long as there is no agreement
fixing prices or otherwise suppressing competition, their ac-
tion is probably legal even though as the result of their in-
terchange of information prices are more or less constant;
but the danger lies in the argument that the several state-
ments that “My price is so and so” amount to indirect
promises or moral assurances that the prices named will not
be changed, and this indirect or moral obligation may be
inferred from results.
To go a step further—it probably would not be illegal
for men to meet in good faith and compare costs and prices
for the purpose of preventing, if possible, disastrous compe-
tition and of getting reasonable returns for their products,
but to what extent such frank and straightforward efforts to
do only what is reasonable and fair from a sound business
point of view will be held legal in this country depends upon
the application the courts may make of the general prin-
ciples laid down in the Standard Oil and Tobacco cases.1
However, no man whose aim in life is to bear himself
creditably among his fellows cares to split hairs with the
law, to take any chances on a court’s decision as to whether
his acts are “reasonable” or “unreasonable.”
1 In a bill filed last year (1911), to dissolve a certain “pool,” the
members of which met periodically to discuss prices and trade condi-
tions, the Government said: “It is not here alleged that merely assem-
bling and mutually exchanging information and declaration of purpose
amount to an agreement or a combination in restraint of trade.”
119
“And the result is, the price of everybody is 'so and
so’.”
“Naturally, but we don’t agree they shall be, we just
exchange views and let prices take care of themselves.”
This set of men is much franker than the former. They
do admit they come together to help conditions, that they
freely discuss prices, and, so long as there is no agreement
fixing prices or otherwise suppressing competition, their ac-
tion is probably legal even though as the result of their in-
terchange of information prices are more or less constant;
but the danger lies in the argument that the several state-
ments that “My price is so and so” amount to indirect
promises or moral assurances that the prices named will not
be changed, and this indirect or moral obligation may be
inferred from results.
To go a step further—it probably would not be illegal
for men to meet in good faith and compare costs and prices
for the purpose of preventing, if possible, disastrous compe-
tition and of getting reasonable returns for their products,
but to what extent such frank and straightforward efforts to
do only what is reasonable and fair from a sound business
point of view will be held legal in this country depends upon
the application the courts may make of the general prin-
ciples laid down in the Standard Oil and Tobacco cases.1
However, no man whose aim in life is to bear himself
creditably among his fellows cares to split hairs with the
law, to take any chances on a court’s decision as to whether
his acts are “reasonable” or “unreasonable.”
1 In a bill filed last year (1911), to dissolve a certain “pool,” the
members of which met periodically to discuss prices and trade condi-
tions, the Government said: “It is not here alleged that merely assem-
bling and mutually exchanging information and declaration of purpose
amount to an agreement or a combination in restraint of trade.”