Pricing pp 155-170 | Cite as

Pricing and the Legal Issues

  • Nessim Hanna
  • H. Robert Dodge


Businesses worldwide operate within systems of laws in setting prices for products and services. These legal frameworks, made up of laws, court decisions, and administrative regulations, are focused on preserving competition and preventing restraints of trade, as well as regulating competitive actions that may result in unfairness and deception on the part of the seller. In England, for example, the common-law rule is that all interference with individual liberty in trading and all restraints in and of themselves are contrary to public opinion and therefore void unless justified by special circumstances. From the passage of the original statutes such as the Sherman Antitrust Act in the USA a century ago the scope and interpretation of these legal frameworks have been expanded and redefined to include much of what businesses view today as the essence of competition. It should come as no surprise that much of the legal attention has been and continues to be on pricing, the setting of prices, and the uses of prices in competitive actions. For example, the practice of price fixing is prohibited outright by Sweden’s Competition Act 1982. In the United Kingdom, the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts 1976 and 1977 make compulsory the registration of agreements between two or more manufacturers or suppliers doing business that impose any restriction on two or more parties to the agreement as to prices.


Fair Trading Price Discrimination Federal Trade Commission Resale Price Maintenance Predatory Price 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ‘The Uruguay Round’s Key Results’, Wall Street Journal, 15 December 1993, p. A6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    United Brands Co. v. E.C. Commission (1978).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoffman-LaRoche & Co. AG v. E.C. Commission (1979).Google Scholar
  4. Europemballage Corp. and Continental Can Co., Inc. v. E.C. Commission (1973).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emil Friberg and Cecil Thomas ‘Is Antitrust Obsolete?’ Journal of Economic Issues, vol. XXV (June 1991) pp. 617–624.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lino A. Graglia ‘One Hundred Years of Antitrust’, Public Interest, Summer 1991, pp. 50–66.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    William E. Kovacic ‘The Identification and Proof of Horizontal Agreements Under Antitrust Laws’, The Antitrust Bulletin, Spring 1993, Lc. 5–81.Google Scholar
  8. Law Against Restraint of Competition (Gesetz Wettbewerbsbeschrankungen) 20 February. 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litigation, D.MD. (April 1983).Google Scholar
  10. ‘Antitrust: The FTC Redefines Price-fixing’, Business Week, vol. 19 (April 1983) p. 38.Google Scholar
  11. Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. 475U.S. 574 (1986).Google Scholar
  12. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 104 (S.Ct., March 1984).Google Scholar
  13. Resale Price Maintenance: Economic Evidence from Litigation, FTC Bureau of? Economic Report, April 1988.Google Scholar
  14. Metrix Warehouse, Inc. v. Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft et al. (D.C. MD, December 1983).Google Scholar
  15. Eximco, Inc., John D. Spears, Joseph D. Michelli, and Rufus I. Davis v. The Trane Co. and Shepard Sales and Services, Inc. (CA-5, July 1984).Google Scholar
  16. Falls City Industries v. Vanco Beverages, Inc., 103 (S.Ct., February 1983).Google Scholar
  17. A.A. Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc. 881 F. 2d 1396 (7th Cir. 1989), Cert Denied, 110 S. Ct. 1326 (1990).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Phillip Areeda and Donald F. Turner ‘Predatory Pricing and Related Practices Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act’, Harvard Law Review, vol. 88 (1975) pp. 711–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clarie Taylor-Sherman ‘A Unified Approach to Predatory Pricing Analysis Under the Sherman and Robinson-Patman Acts: A.A. Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc., A Case Against the Tide’, Minnesota Law Review, vol. 76, pp. 1283–1312.22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Nessim Hanna and H. Robert Dodge 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nessim Hanna
    • 1
  • H. Robert Dodge
    • 2
  1. 1.Northern Illinois UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of MarketingEastern Michigan UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations