Search

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus on the regulation of monopolistic methods. One of the developments describes the case of the United States v. General Dynamics Corp., which suggests a major shift in the way that the U.S. Supreme Court defines Section 7 of the Clayton Act. Another development discusses the case of Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar. In this case, the court found that a price schedule issued by a private legal bar association does not constitute illegal price fixing because the lawyers do not practice a trade. A third development focuses on the case of Treasure Valley Potato Bargaining Association v. Ore-Ida Foods. This case is described in the text.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus on the regulation of unfair competition. One of the developments describes a public notice sent by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to all broadcast licensees. The notice declared that the use of subliminal messages by broadcasters is contrary to public opinion and will be viewed unfavorably by the FCC. Another development discusses a cease and desist order issue by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission against Bristol-Myers Co. The order forbade the company and its advertising agency, Oglivy & Mathers from using any deceptive product feature or product superiority demonstrations for any product.

The article focuses on the proposed Uniform Consumer Credit Code in the U.S. in the late 1960s, particularly raising questions of errant behavior within the laws and their preventative measures to discourage such behaviors through the moderation of the creditor-debtor relationship. The "bad man" approach of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is particularly described and applied to the credit code. Several instances of the legal disincentives present within the code to prevent deliberate contract-breaching behaviors are analyzed.

The article discusses the U.S. Investment Advisors Act of 1940. After reviewing prevailing conditions in the securities industry prior to the Act, the author details the Act's various provisions. Particular attention is paid to requirements surrounding the registration of financial advisors, and several instances are discussed under which registration was either denied or revoked. In the author's view the Act has neither placed undue restrictions or advisors, nor left them free to engage in abuses not uncommon prior to the act.

This article presents a bibliography and a list of the major events that led up to and followed the segment reporting issue. These events included the hearings of the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary regarding economic concentration in American industry which took place in September of 1964. In April 1965, economist Joel Dirlam gave testimony that suggested an amendment to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, requiring corporations to disclose profits and revenues for all operations.

Leading firms in many consumer industries may soon be charged with acts of unfair competition in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The charges will be based on the economic argument that product differentiation, achieved through advertising and/or styling changes, has transformed competitive industries into noncompetitive ones. This article illustrates the economic issues by analyzing a specific recommendation to place a moratorium on style changes in the auto industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the United States v. Phillipsburg National Bank and Trust Co., et al. case is cited among others. In reference to collusive practices the Tropic Film Corporation v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, Paramount Film Distributing Corporation and Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. case is cited. In reference to market exclusion tactics the Curtis C. Flood v. Bowie K. Kuhn, et al. case is cited among others.

A recent series of Supreme Court decisions has assumed the economic power of large oil companies causes dealers to restrict sales to sponsored brands with the result that competitors are denied access to the market. The validity of this assumption is questioned in this note. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As it is currently evolving, the complex law of privacy is probably quite different from the perceived "right of privacy." This paper examines the law, and identifies the most vulnerable flanks of the marketing research profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. Regarding market control, the article discusses United States v. Third National Bank in Nashville, et al., and William B. Camp, Comptroller of the Currency (Intervener) where the Third Bank was required by the U.S. government to establish a new bank with the proceeds of an acquisition of Nashville Bank and Trust Co.. The article gives some details of the settlement. In regard to collusive practices, the article discusses Pacific Seafarers, Inc. et al., v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., et al. as it pertains to violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

The article presents information on the marketing implications of unfair competition. In regard to advertising, the article discusses the dismissal of charges in regard to the First Buckingham Community, Inc. et al. as it pertains to the policy of racial discrimination in the renting of apartments. The jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission in light of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 is discussed. In regard to nonadvertising promotional methods, the article presents a discussion of the "Report on the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Program" which addresses unfair and deceptive practices to which low-income consumers were susceptible. The article states that public hearings associated with the report will inform future Federal Trade Commission actions.

Behavioral science research has uncovered various facets of consumer behavior that have significance in setting standards for protection from advertising abuse. This article suggests that the Federal Trade Commission take note of the behavioral characteristics of the consumer and amend its regulatory framework accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents legal case studies involving marketing law, price discrimination, and exclusive arrangements between buyers and sellers. The cases of Empire Rayon Yarn Co. Inc. v. American Viscose Corp., Fred Malina, Edythe N. Charnas and Fred H. Diamond, co-partners d.b.a. Malina Co., Butner Bros. Corp.; Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. Ontario Store of Price Hill Ohio Inc.; and Rubbermaid Inc. v. Claber Distributing Co. of Cleveland Inc., a.k.a. Uncle Bill's are presented.

The article presents legal case studies involving marketing law, price discrimination, exclusive arrangements between buyers and sellers and an alleged violation of the Robinson-Patman Act. The Borden Company v. Federal Trade Commission involves the U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit and the price charged for evaporated milk. Another case, Peter Sartori of California v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, involves automobiles sold to a competitor at low prices.

The article presents information on the marketing implications of procedural and legal developments. In regard to the case of the United States v. Allied Chemical Corp. and General Foam Corp., the District Court of Southern New York agreed that enough evidence existed that Allied and General Foam may have violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and requested the companies give additional information. In the case of Roberts Brothers Inc. et al. v. Kurtz Bros. et al., the District Court of New Jersey found that the plaintiff in a private antitrust action cannot claim the benefits of both the special venue provisions of the antitrust laws and of the general venue statutes.

The article presents legal case studies involving marketing law, price discrimination, exclusive arrangements between buyers and sellers and alleged violations of the U.S. Robinson-Patman Act. The article presents the case of Boysen Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons Inc., Sealtest Inc., The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company Inc, and Pioneer Diary Inc., the case of the United States v. National Dairy Products Corp. and Raymond J. Wise, and the case of Forster Manufacturing Co. Inc. et al. v. the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. The article focuses on United States court cases pertaining to market control and collusive practices. In the case of the United States v. Continental Can Co. et al., the U.S. Supreme Court found that the merger between the it and Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The case of United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Co., et al., found that the joint venture does not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, but did violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act. In the case of the United States v. Kennecott Copper Corp., the District Court of Southern New York found that the companies did violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

The cost defense under the Robinson-Patman Act once seemed to be a fairly routine process. Since 1962, however, serious problems have been posed by the Supreme Court and the Federal Trade Commission. This article examines the cost defenses in the light of these decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. The article focuses on United States court cases pertaining to market control and collusive practices. In the case of the United States v. First National Bank and Trust Company et al., the U.S. Supreme Court found that the merger between First National Bank and Security Trust Co. violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The case of United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., the court found that El Paso Natural Gas Co.'s acquisition of Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corp. does not violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act. In the case of the United States v. Aluminum Company of America, et al., the Supreme Court found that the merger between Aluminum Company and Rome did violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

The U. S. Supreme Court was never more correct than in saying that "precision of expression is not an outstanding characteristic of the Robinson-Patman Act." This article shows the varied interpretations given by the FTC to one section of the Act, dealing with "commodities of like grade and quality." The author also shows how the phrase "like grade and quality" may be given sharper and less ambiguous meaning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do decisions by marketing managers and advertising executives influence court decisions pertaining to the law of products liability? Manufacturers face an increasing number of damage claims from consumers, and recent cases modifying the rules of substantive law enhance a plaintiff's prospect of successful suit. The author explains why the law of products liability continues to develop and expand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article outlines changes in the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) procedures for regulating unfair business practices. A brief history of the FTC's jurisdiction over competition and deceptive advertising practices is presented. A discussion is presented about rules of practice that became effective in 1961 and procedural innovations enacted in order to speed up matters in the FTC. Also mentioned are procedural changes related to hearings, appeals, delegation of authority, and restraining orders. The author outlines FTC activity during fiscal year 1962.

This article is a case study of how one firm unwillingly violated Section 2(d) of the Robinson-Patman Act by merely participating in a cooperative advertising plan. It shows that the Federal Trade Commission's strict interpretation of the law's language can frustrate innovation in marketing strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antitrust indictments against business firms often appear to businessmen and the community to represent an unfair attack on normal business behavior by an anti-business arm of the government. The author examines the rationale for the enforcement of proscriptions against one form of business activity--price fixing--and concludes that where such behavior is concerned, considerations of fairness or "normality" can have no bearing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of price competition. In reference to price discrimination, the case of Exquisite Form Brassiere Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission is presented. The legal system's findings involving Section 2 of the Robinson-Patman Act are reported. A second case involving the alleged conflict of state and federal law, State of Wisconsin v. Texaco Inc., is presented. A third case involving the Swanee Paper Corporation is presented and also centers on a contentious element of the Robinson-Patman Act.

The common names of many well-known products once were trademarks that belonged to particular manufacturers. But these trademarks passed into the language as generic terms because they were, in a sense, too successful. This article shows why trademarks become generic and describes several different methods which may be used, singly or in combination, to avoid this result. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article represents the "positive view" of price discrimination--offenses and defenses against the Robinson-Patman Act. It provides guideposts for the businessman who wants to implement a marketing program in accordance with sound business judgment, rather than by default out of vague apprehension of a vague law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the concept of the allocation of power in society and focuses this idea on the regulation of business and the economy. The author looks at how power is generally distributed among groups with the majority falling on one person or a small group of people. Furthermore, he discusses the dangers of this phenomenon, and points out that the idea of the centralization of power is viewed in a negative way by most Americans. He illustrates how antitrust laws were implemented to properly distribute the power gained by monopolists, and how the antitrust laws only transfer a limited amount of power to the government. The idea of a free market is contrasted with the need for trade regulation, and the social responsibility of business is mentioned.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus on the regulation of price discrimination. One of the developments discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case of the Federal Trade Commission v. Anheuser-Busch Inc., in which the court found that price discrimination had occurred. Another developments describes the Supreme Court case of the Federal Trade Commission v. Henry Broch & Co. in which the court found that a seller's broker is regulated by the Robinson-Patman Act. A third development focuses on the case of Central Ice Cream Co. v. Golden Rod Ice Cream Co., which clarified several aspects concerning price discrimination and the Robinson-Patman Act.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus on the regulation of price competition. One of the developments describes the case of American Motor Specialties Co. Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, in which clarified the legality of buyers forming buyer groups to ensure a discount for purchasing larger quantities than would be possible by individual buyers. Another development describes the case of Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-on-Drugs Inc., in which the New Jersey Supreme Court found that a foreign corporation could not enforce a fair trade contract in New Jersey if it was conducting business in that state without the proper certification.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus on the regulation of price competition. One of the developments describes the case of H.J. Heinz Company v. Beech-Nut Life Savers Inc., which shows the difficulties presented by the Robinson-Patman Act in cases involving price discrimination. Another development discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., which limits the allowable methods used by manufacturers in coercing retailers to maintain the resale prices in states without fair trade laws and state having fair trade laws without non-signer provisions.

What are the limits of the good-faith defense? The article outlines the many problems which still surround the interpretation and application of Section 2(b) of the Robinson-Patman Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Robinson-Patman Act is the most basic statute affecting competitive pricing. Yet too few businessmen are aware of significant changes that have occurred in the interpretation and enforcement of the Act. Some pricing actions that were held illegal under earlier interpretation are today considered "a necessary part of competition." The author also interprets other changed aspects of the Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing use of marketing data as legal evidence seems certain. And recent court decisions mean that everyone interested in marketing, advertising, and survey research should be familiar with the use of marketing data in courts of law. This article reviews pertinent features of the American legal system. It also describes some of the unusual problems in collecting and presenting marketing data to courts and administrative agencies. Standards for survey-research evidence are also explained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of price competition. In regard to price discrimination, the article discusses Niehoff & Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and FTC action against price discrimination violations under the Robinson-Patman Act by automobile part manufacturers. In regard to resale price maintenance, the article discusses Sunbeam Corp. v. Gilbert Simmons, Associates, Inc. and signers of state fair trade contracts.

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In regard to market control, the article discusses Newburgh Moire Company, Inc. v. Superior Moire Company, Inc. as it relates to multiple licensing accompanied by price fixing and antitrust laws. The article explains the legal history behind the decision. In regard to collusive practices, the article discusses Davis Pleating and Button Company v. The California Sportswear and Dress Association, Inc., et al. as it relates to labor unions, antitrust law, and nonlabor organizations.

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. A case involving antitrust allegations, United States v. Brown Shoe Company Inc. is presented. The Clayton Act and mergers and acquisitions law is involved; the judge refused to grant the government an injunction against the merger between Brown Shoe Company and G.R. Kinney. Information is provided on several consent decree cases.

The article presents abstracts from various publications on the topic of government regulation in marketing, including "Changes in Concentration in Manufacturing, 1935 to 1947 and 1950," "The Economics of Marketing Reform," and "Market Imperfections: Enforcement of the Anti-Trust Laws in a Friction-Afflicted Economy."

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of price competition. The article focuses on United States court cases pertaining to price control and price maintenance. The cases of General Electric Co. v. Masters Inc. and Lionel Corp. v. S. Klein on the Square, Raxor Corp. and Soria Sales Corp., and Capitol Records v. Goody were based on allegations of resale price maintenance. The case of Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Margetts focused on allegations of price control in the sale of gasoline.

The article focuses on antitrust laws in the United States, specifically those administered by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The author investigates economic evidence used by the FTC in determining possible violations of the law that will have adverse effects on competition. He attempts to answer three questions in order to protect competition, while limiting the per se doctrine (what are the relevant economic and marketing factors?, how can they be developed?, and how can they be presented in evidence without unduly burdening the record or extending the time of trial?). He believes a sensible and consistent antitrust policy are dependent on economic and marketing factors. In his opinion, these factors should be weighed before making any decisions.

The article discusses retail price policy and administrative price control, focusing on governmental policies. The author mentions various price control program developments that have shaped the U.S. economy, including the General Ceiling Price Regulation in 1951, Ceiling Price Regulation (CPR) 7, and CPR's 14, 15, and 16. He concludes that CPR's 7, 14, 15, and 16 were well conceived and well adapted to the market. He also says that while reliance on margin controls may appear prone to pyramiding of price adjustments, it is possible to realize savings. Finally he feels inadequacies in the regulations were due to insufficient time being utilized in planning and an attempt to use regulations in situations where they were not appropriate.

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. The article focuses on United States court cases pertaining to market control and collusive practices. The cases of The People v. Building Maintenance Contractors' Association Inc. et al., Theatre Enterprises Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., et al., and the United States v. American Lead Pencil Co., et al. are all presented.

The article discusses futures trading in wheat in Kansas City, Missouri. In 1940, Kansas City's Board of Trade began to allow soft winter wheat on its futures contracts. In 1953, falling soft winter wheat prices put millers of hard wheat at considerable hardship, which led them to request the Kansas City Board of Trade to only allow hard winter wheat. The original proposal was rejected because it was believed the existing contract would attract more trading. Millers and hedgers became dissatisfied with a resulting rise in premiums, which led them to use other markets. Open contracts dropped rapidly, as did average daily sales. The Kansas City exchange attempted going back to hard wheat only trading, which has caused a significant recovery in wheat futures.

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of unfair competition. The article focuses on United States court cases pertaining to the regulation of promotional and non-promotional advertising. The cases of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission v. Carter Products Inc., Rhodes Pharmacal Co. Inc. et al. v. the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, and the Book-of-the-Month Club Inc. v. the U.S. Federal Trade Commission are presented.

The commercial exhibit is a facilitating marketing agency in which there is a periodic display of goods by competing sellers under one roof, or within close proximity, in order to promote the sale of goods to a concentration of buyers. There are two classes of commercial exhibits in the United States: the trade fair whose sole or primary purpose is to facilitate the completion of trade negotiations and the exposition whose sole or primary purpose is to facilitate the advertising of commodities. Expositions may be further sub-divided into those directed to the general public and those of a purely industrial nature. The commercial exhibit assists in the performance of three marketing functions: buying, selling, and the provision of market information. The report that follows seeks first to describe the commercial exhibit by showing some of its institutional aspects, the extent of the activity and its organization. Second, the nature and effectiveness of private and public controls are discussed. Finally, several economic implications are isolated and appraised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the Automatic Canteen Co. case and buyer's liability under the U.S. Robinson-Patman Act. The Robinson-Patman Act, like the Clayton Act was designed to stop discriminatory pricing to favored buyers. In 1952, The U.S. Federal Trade Commission charged Automatic Canteen Co. with a two part complaint, first, that it violated the Clayton Act by using exclusive dealing contracts and that it violated the Robinson-Patman Act by knowingly receiving price discriminations in the purchase of confectionary products. The Supreme Court overturned the decision, telling the FTC it needed to gather more information before bringing the case to trial. The author believes the case is likely to produce better economic results and increased competition.

The article discusses the opinions of Joel B. Dirlam and Alfred E. Kahn on a court case involving the Great Atlantic ans Pacific Tea Company. The author notes that Dirlam and Kahn both offer a sympathetic interpretation of the case, in which two antitrust acts, the Sherman Act and the Robinson-Patman Act, are in question.

The article discusses the U.S. Department of Justice's enforcement of the Sherman Act in 1951. Reports indicate that 51 legal cases were brought forth in reference to the Act. A suit against the Insurance Board of Cleveland, Ohio marked the first time a segment of the insurance business was attacked since 1944. That year the U.S. Supreme Court held that insurance was considered interstate commerce and is subject to the limitations of the Sherman Act. The newspaper publishing industry also received attention in 1951 in regards to antitrust legislation. In more than half of the cases brought forth, one or more U.S. trade associations were the alleged defendants or alleged conspirators.

The article discusses the format for the "Journal of Marketing" in the post World War II period. The major departments of the journal are discussed and outlined. A comparison of issues from the pre and post World War II period is presented. An additional section was introduced in 1951 and entitled "Legislative and Judicial Developments in Marketing." The editors explain that this section is an attempt to cover this aspect of marketing systematically. The journal expanded in size significantly since World War II. The amount of advertising has tripled in size since the journal's first decade of existence.

The article reports on legal developments related to the regulation of price competition in the field of marketing in the U.S. The author provides information about the court cases American Can Company v. Bruce's Juices, Incorporated; Schwegmann Brothers et al. v. Calvert Distillers Corporation; U.S. Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Brands, Incorporated.