The Federal Office of Cartels is responsible for setting the prices of the guitars, according to an investigation by the Federal Office of Cartels on suspicion of illegally fixing resale prices, the Spanish guitar manufacturer Manufacturas Alhambra S.L. has realised a possible influence on the price policy of (…) On Thursday, June 28, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a pioneering opinion on the agreements, that such 5-4-vote agreements are not in themselves illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In a departure from nearly a century ago, the Supreme Court of Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. announced that resale price maintenance agreements between producers and distributors must be evaluated on the line of the more pragmatic “rule” test, which takes into account the pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects of such agreements. While the full effect of the Supreme Court`s decision can only be measured when implemented by the preliminary bodies, there is no doubt that it will fundamentally change the way manufacturers and distributors do business in the future. Fines to Apple, Tech Data and Ingram Micro The Competition Authority fines Apple a total of 1.1 billion euros for taking part in anti-competitive agreements within its distribution network and abusing a situation of economic dependence on its “premium” (…) As far as competition is concerned, Article 101 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFUE) are at the forefront of the national competition legislation of all Member States. Both the European Court of Justice and the European Commission ruled that the maintenance of the resale price was generally prohibited. British law must apply this interpretation when it comes to inter-state agreements between companies. [Citation required] In Leegin, the Supreme Court ultimately struck down Dr. Miles and ruled that resale price maintenance contracts were not inherently illegal.

It applied the same reasoning that underpinned its decisions in Sylvania and others, finding that non-tariff vertical restrictions were subject to the rule. In last week`s ruling, the Supreme Court definitively rejected the ban on resale sales contracts. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that non-tariff vertical restrictions, such as vertically imposed exclusive territories. B, were not to be analysed on a “rule of reason” based on facts. The Court thus turned to the logic of Bork and Telser, applied to such restrictions, and considered the fact that, in a “strictly competitive situation”, merchants could free up the advertising efforts of the other.