Quality Stabilization: Hearings...88-1,2...June 5, August 19, September 9, November 7, 13, December 9, 1963, January 22, 23, and February 19, 19641964 - 701 pages |
Contents
| 106 | |
| 130 | |
| 192 | |
| 218 | |
| 275 | |
| 277 | |
| 292 | |
| 306 | |
| 335 | |
| 373 | |
| 385 | |
| 395 | |
| 573 | |
| 613 | |
| 633 | |
| 649 | |
| 652 | |
| 656 | |
| 668 | |
| 672 | |
| 683 | |
| 685 | |
| 694 | |
| 695 | |
Common terms and phrases
88th Congress advertising American Bar Association antitrust laws bait merchandising brand name brand owner branded products cents chainstores Chairman Commerce committee commodities compete Congress consumer cost COURTLAND customers dealers Department of Justice discount houses distribution distributors DIXON drug Druggists effect enactment enforcement fair trade laws fair trade price fair-trade Federal Trade Commission fix prices free enterprise gasoline going Government higher prices increase independent retailers industry interest legislation loss leaders lower prices manufacturer markup merchants million monopoly Nolo contendere non-fair-trade nonsigner operation percent practices price competition price cutting price fixing private brands professor of economics professor of marketing profit proposed protection purchased Quality Stabilization Act quality stabilization bill resale price maintenance reseller sell Senator HARTKE small business small businessman small retailer sold statement subcommittee sumer Supreme Court tion trademark U.S. Senate unfair University Washington wholesale
Popular passages
Page 569 - Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co. (334 US 219 (1948)).
Page 328 - Therefore, corrective action involving deceptive practices in the sale of furniture would be initiated under the Authority of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act which prohibits "unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.
Page 62 - College, as explained on pages 415 and 416 of the hearings on fair trade, 1959, of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives.
Page 618 - ... owner of such commodity and which is in fair and open competition with commodities of the same general class produced by others shall be deemed in violation of any law of the State of California by reason of any of the following provisions which may be contained in such contract: 1.
Page 618 - No contract relating to the sale or resale of a commodity which bears, or the label or content of which bears, the trade-mark, brand, or name of the producer or owner of such commodity, and which is in fair and open competition with commodities of the same general class produced by others...
Page 275 - States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States ; or, to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.
Page 327 - That any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Page 263 - The recent bill before the Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee...
Page 401 - The right to choose — to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of products and services at competitive prices...
Page 170 - I cannot believe that in the long run the public will profit by this court permitting knaves to cut reasonable prices for some ulterior purpose of their own and thus to impair, if not to destroy, the production and sale of articles which it is assumed to be desirable that the public should be able to get.