[Leica] Fair Trade Laws

[philippe.amard at tele2.fr (Philippe AMARD)]

Hi Marc,
I can't see what the problem is, so far as we get the item we've ordered 
, knowingly, and at the price its label/tag said it was.
Now if Leica and others want to sell less, it is up to them to set their 
prices for the market not to buy them. As simple as that.
And if they do want us to buy, let them figure out how much we're ready 
to pay, whatever the reason.
No offense meant, just a point of view among many others.
Be maybe I mistook your point ???
Best regards
Phx


Marc James Small wrote:

> Until the late 1940's, manufacturers were allowed to set the retail 
> prices for their wares.  That is, say, Ernst Leitz could direct that a 
> IIIc camera body be sold for $185 and, if a dealer undercut this, 
> could then regard the distribution contract as breached and could then 
> refuse to sell any more gear to that dealer.  This became a political 
> issue as it was seen to run in contravention to the US Federal 
> distaste for monopolistic practices.
>
> This changed under the Truman Administration when Congress enacted a 
> "Fair Trade Law", later tightened under the Kennedy Administration in 
> the 1960's.
>
> Under the first version, in effect during the 1950's and early 1960's, 
> the manufacturers were only permitted to set the selling price if the 
> component were sold complete and entire as delivered from the 
> manufacturer.  Thus, a camera dealer still found his price fixed by 
> the manufacturer when he sold a camera body alone or a camera body 
> with a lens from the same manufacturer, but could sell at whatever 
> price he wished if he placed a lens from another manufacturer on the 
> body.  Thus, a dealer was on his own he sold a Leica IIIf body 
> equipped with a 2" f/2 Cooke Amotal lens or the like.  And thus was 
> born that wonderful world of non-Leitz LTM lenses.  (Someone should 
> write a book .... oh, I already did!)
>
> The second version of the Fair Trade Laws, in effect from the early 
> 1960's, only allowed the manufacturer to set the "Minimum Advertised 
> Price", or MAP.  That is, the dealer was not allowed to advertise a 
> price below this but could sell for whatever price he wished whether 
> or not the item was as delivered from the factory.  This led to all of 
> those screaming ads in SHUDDERBUG:  "CALL FOR OUR BEST PRICE!"
>
> The US Supreme Court in a poorly reported Opinion not yet posted to 
> their Web Site seems to have ruled in the past several days that such 
> Fair Trade Laws are Constitutionally impermissible as breaching the 
> validity of contract between manufacturer and dealer.  I suspect that, 
> once I read the Opinion, I will agree with it philosophically but I 
> certainly am glad that the Warren Court didn't rule that way on the 
> initial challenge in 1955 as then my book would have been half its 
> length ....
>
> Marc
>
>
> msmall@aya.yale.edu
> Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>