Search

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.

This article explores the relationship between antitrust law and industry-specific regulation in the U.S. After briefly discussing the historical collaboration between antitrust and regulatory law, it explores the cases that show skepticism toward antitrust intervention in regulated industries. It offers a framework for evaluating the application of antitrust law to regulated industries. The article turns to regulatory gaming as an example of behavior that justifies antitrust oversight of regulated markets.

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of price competition. In regard to price discrimination, the article discusses United States v. United States Gypsum Co., et al. and an issue regarding compliance with Section 2(b) of the Robinson-Patman Act and good-faith meeting of a competitor's price. The article discusses the details of the case as it made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the ultimate finding rested on a procedural rationale, which the author argues, raises more questions about antitrust law than it answers. A second discussion involving the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation and discriminatory advertising allowances is presented.

The article reports on procedural and miscellaneous legal developments pertaining to the field of marketing in the U.S. The author includes information about the possibility of foreign governments suing the U.S. government under parens patriae. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit ruled that the principals of international law and comity did not apply in this case. The case of Wynn Oil Company, Plaintiff v. Purolator Chemical Corporation et al. is discussed. Litigation associated with Arizona Dairy Products is reported.