Re: We no longer sell Premier Heritage riflescopes
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MtGoat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Correct me if I am wrong but MP is not legl in the "free market economy" hence the MAP policies.
Pat </div></div>
Pat this a great question and I think a source of confusion in this thread.
As I understand it, illegal collusion would be if 4 of the 5 top manufacturers came together and set price so as to create a scheme that injured the 5th or in some way cheated / defrauded the consumer.
That isn't what is happening here.
As I understand the situation we have manufacturer A selling to stocking dealer B under the terms of a non exclusive agreement to represent manufacturer A. That is a private agreement that is not subject to anti trust laws.
We'd need to read what the agreement actually states to know for sure, but the strong inference from the portion of the email in the OP to the stocking dealers effectively said - if you want to sell our goods - you need to charge MAP. It is also likely that the agreement specifically states that no notice of termination is required and that such termination can be effectuated without cause or for minimal cause. There may even be some form of default and remedy provision within the agreement favoring the manufacturer.
General thoughts:
A) Everyone that is bagging on PR - how many of you have invested in your own company and gone out and set your own nuts on the line? How many of you same folks bemoan US companies for going off shore? Or US manufactured product market erosion b/c of perceived failures in trade regs (dumping of steel or timber come to mind). Ask yourself - given the narrowness of the market at the top, and given the fledgling nature of PR's endeavor, coupled with some of the rockiness they have experienced - wouldn't expect them to enforce MAP in an effort to guarantee success? Be consistent in your thoughts about American business - PR has the right to do this and the right to enforce it. Don't like it, don't buy it.
B) Someone hit the nail on the head - in essence, strong enforcement of MAP generally favors a product that is not capable of securing the same value in the market place if relegated to pure competitive forces.
C) Personally, I think the OP should be altered to reflect the fact that it is very possible PR IS in the right on this matter.
*I am not an attorney*
Good luck </div></div>
I just remember when the shoe was on the other foot a number of SH members stepped up for PR and backed them 100% in an assorted number of ways. memories seem to be short but as has already been pointed out PR has not responded. Hopefully this can be worked out and all back to "normal"....time will tell.
It still seems to me that price fixing or compelling a retailer to sell for a certain price falls well into the gray area or is illegal but I believe my Business Law books are long gone to try and find the references I seem to remember.
It seems that there should have been some dialog before the contract was terminated. As you pointed out the fine print is where the details of the contract are defined and only those involved know the details.
Again hopefully this was just a misunderstanding and things can be worked out.
Pat
