Report of the Attorney General's National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws: Hearings Before the Select Committee on Small Business, United States Senate, Eighty-fourth Congress, First Session, to Consider the Report of the Attorney General's National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws, April 27, 28 and 29, 1955, Part 1, 1. daļaU.S. Government Printing Office, 1955 - 325 lappuses |
Citi izdevumi - Skatīt visu
Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes
5-percent advertising allowance 5-percent brokerage ADAMS antitrust laws Attorney General's committee Automatic Canteen automatic vending machines brokers buyer candy cents CHAIRMAN Clayton Act committee's companies competitors complaint confectionery Congress cooperatives cost customers dealers decision Department of Justice discount dissent distributors economic effect enforcement fact fair trade fair-trade faith Federal Trade Commission gasoline going good-faith defense independent industry investigation Judge Barnes legislation lower price majority manufacturers meeting competition merger monopoly operate patent percent for advertising practices price discrimination prohibited provision quantity quantity discount question repeal resale price maintenance respondent restraint retail Robinson-Patman Act rule of reason SCHOEPPEL sell seller Senator DUFF Senator HUMPHREY Senator LONG Senator SCHOEPPEL Senator THYE Sherman Act small business Standard Oil statement statute Study the Antitrust suppliers Supreme Court tion treble damages United vending machines violation wholesalers
Populāri fragmenti
317. lappuse - ... (b) Upon proof being made, at any hearing on a complaint under this section, that there has been discrimination in price or services or facilities furnished, the burden of rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing justification shall be upon the person charged with a violation of this section, and unless justification shall be affirmatively shown, the commission is authorized to issue an order terminating the discrimination: Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall prevent...
301. lappuse - Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered...
301. lappuse - ... commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States...
238. lappuse - But this Court has never held that proof of parallel business behavior conclusively establishes agreement or, phrased differently, that such behavior itself constitutes a Sherman Act offense. Circumstantial evidence of consciously parallel behavior may have made heavy inroads into the traditional judicial attitude toward conspiracy; but "conscious parallelism" has not yet read conspiracy out of the Sherman Act entirely.
298. lappuse - That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality...
273. lappuse - The name of each public utility holding company, listed in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph which has registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (49 Stat.
126. lappuse - Commission may after due investigation and hearing to all interested parties, fix and establish quantity limits, and revise the same as it finds necessary, as to particular commodities or classes of commodities, where it finds that available purchasers in greater quantities are so few as to render differentials on account thereof unjustly discriminatory or promotive of monopoly in any line of commerce...
8. lappuse - The relative effect of percentage command of a market varies with the setting in which that factor is placed.
294. lappuse - And because for even a lawful monopolist it is 'unreasonable, per se, to foreclose competitors from any substantial market,' a tying arrangement is banned by §1 of the Sherman Act whenever both conditions are met.
175. lappuse - We know that this is a power which may be abused, but that is no argument against its existence. For protection against abuses by legislatures the people must resort to the polls, not to the courts.