This article proposes a set of guidelines for the application of the “rule of reason” to vertical restrictions imposed by manufacturers on independent distributors. The guidelines have been developed from an analysis of the economic impact of vertical restrictions, the needs of manufacturers for distribution control, and a public policy that fosters effective competition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company (1978), 73 Civ. 424.
2.
BorkRobert (1966), “The Rule of Reason and Per Se Concept: Price Fixing and Market Division II,”Yale Law Journal, 75 (January), 373.
3.
BuzzellRobert D. (1980), “Vertical Restrictions on Distributors: A Marketing Viewpoint,” Conference Board conference on antitrust, (Spring).
4.
ComanorWilliam (1968), “Vertical Territorial and Customer Restrictions: White Motor and Its Aftermath,”Harvard Law Review, 81 (May), 1419.
5.
Continental T.V. Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. (1977), 433 U.S. 33.
6.
Cresap, McCormick and Paget, Inc. (1972), “A Study of the Soft Drink Bottling and Canning Industry and the Impact of the FTC Complaint on the Industry's Future,” in Hearings on Exclusive Territorial Allocation Legislation, U.S. Senate, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, 331, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommitee on Antitrust and Monopoly.
7.
Federal Trade Commission (1977), Annual Report, Bureau of Economics.
8.
In the Matter of the Coca-Cola Company et al. (1978), Docket Number 8855.
9.
LancasterKalvin (1966), “A New Approach to Consumer Theory,”Journal of Political Economy, 74 (April), 132.
10.
PetermanJohn L. (1975), “The Federal Trade Commission v. Brown Shoe Company,”Journal of Law and Economics, 18 (April), 93–106.
11.
PosnerRichard (1975), “Antitrust Policy and the Supreme Court: An Analysis of Restricted Distribution, Horizontal Merger and Potential Competition Decisions,”Columbia Law Review, 75 (March), 283–85.
12.
PrestonLee E. (1965), “Restrictive Distribution Arrangements: Economic Analysis and Public Policy Standards,”Law and Contemporary Problems, 30 (Summer), 506.
13.
RatchfordBrian T. (1975), “The New Economic Theory of Consumer Behavior: An Interpretive Essay,”Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (September), 65.
14.
RobinsonL. (1972), “Note. Territorial Restrictions and Per Se Rules—A Reevaluation of the Schwinn and Sealy Doctrines,”Michigan Law Review, 70 (Winter), 616.
15.
Sherman Antitrust Act (1890), Chap. 647 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S. Code (1964).
16.
United States v. Aluminum Company of America (1945), 148 F 2nd 416.
17.
United States v. Arnold, Schwinn and Co. (1966), 388 U.S. 365.
18.
United States v. Sealy (1967), 388 U.S. 350.
19.
United States v. Topco Associates (1972), 405 U.S. 596.
20.
White Motor Co. v. United States (1963), 372 U.S. 253.
