[Leica] Fair Trade Laws

[jshul at comcast.net (Jim Shulman)]

Good point!  This was a very common practice in the electronics industry as
well, back in the days when TV sets and hi-fis were very expensive.

In the early 1950s, a friend of mine wanted one of the huge Capehart
radio-phonograph combinations (that flipped over the 78s, and played through
a stack of 12 records continuously.) It was already an obsolete, out-of
production item, but he assumed that former dealers might have one or two
around. He went to the Hockschild-Kohn's department store in Baltimore and
asked if they still had any available unsold Capeharts from the 1940s (in
the glory days before computer-controlled inventory control, established
stores often had relic merchandise in the back room.)

He was taken to a warehouse nearby, which held hundreds of old radios and
phonographs taken in trade for the latest TV sets.  He had his pick of
nearly 100 Capeharts--sets that H-K had sold only a few years before for
$1000 and up!

Jim Shulman
Bryn Mawr, PA

Who has another friend who bought a brand new RCA TRK-12 (RCA's first
commercial "mirror in the lid" TV set, made in 1939) at the back of a NYC
electronics store--in 1953 for $25.


-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+jshul=comcast.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+jshul=comcast.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Bill
Grimwood
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:43 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Fair Trade Laws

Another way to get around the Fair Trade laws was on trade ins.   I traded 
an old broken camera in on my first Pentax.  I was given $100 for it and it 
was a piece of junk


Bill Grimwood


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marc James Small" <marcsmall@comcast.net>
To: "Internet Directory of Camera Collectors" <idcc@lists.kjsl.com>; 
<rollei_list@freelists.org>; <lug@leica-users.org>; <ZICG@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:54 AM
Subject: [Leica] Fair Trade Laws


> 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
>
> 


_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information