Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:07:13.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Incidence, Nature, and Implications of Price-Fixing Litigation in U.S. Food Industries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Leo Polopolus  and
James S. Wershow
Leo Polopolus
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville
James S. Wershow
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Gainesville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Antitrust laws generally seek to promote competition in U.S. markets. Alternatively, these laws attempt to correct the type of market failure that occurs when the market does not sustain price competition or embodies undesirable features, such as prices fixed and agreed upon by rival sellers. It is well known that the federal policy to curb price-fixing agreements was central to the enactment of the Sherman Act of 1890. Formal cartels of the 19th and early 20th centuries, with their sales quotas, exclusive sales agencies, price-fixing committees, and customer and geographic sales allocations, apparently have been eliminated from the contemporary scene. Despite the disappearance of United States based formal cartels, there has been considerable litigation in recent years over pricing behavior of individual firms. A wide array of agricultural and food industries have been involved in these actions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , July 1978 , pp. 1 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Appalachian Coal, Inc., v. U.S., 288 U.S. 344 (1933).Google Scholar
[2]Broiler Industry, September 1977.Google Scholar
[3]Chicago Board of Trade v. U.S., 246 U.S. 231 (1918).Google Scholar
[4]Continental Baking Company v. Utah Pie Company, 396 F 2d 161 (1968).Google Scholar
[5]Elzinga, Kenneth G. and Breit, William, the Antitrust Penalties: A Study in Law and Economics, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
[6]Elzinga, Kenneth G. and Hogarty, Thomas F.. “Utah Pie and the Consequences of Robinson-Patman,” unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
[7]Illinois Brick et al. v. Illinois et al., Supreme Court of the United States, No. 76-404, June 9, 1977.Google Scholar
[8] “In Re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation,” CCH Trade Cases, 1976 (61,078).Google Scholar
[9] “In Re Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation,” CCH Trade Cases, 1974 (60,362), 1975 (60,548), 1976 (61,215/61,004), 1977 (61,373).Google Scholar
[10] “Irving Bray et al. v. Safeway Stores, A & P, and Kroger,” CCH Trade Cases, 1975 (60,193).Google Scholar
[11]Kirkham, Francis R. “Complex Civil Litigation—Have Good Intentions Gone Away?”, paper presented to National Conference on the Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, April 9, 1976.Google Scholar
[12] “Meat Price Investigators Association et al. v. Iowa Beef Processors et al.,” CCH Trade Cases, 1977 (61,078).Google Scholar
[13]Mueller, Willard F.A Primer on Monopoly and Competition, New York: Random House, 1970.Google Scholar
[14]Polopolus, Leo. Affidavit Regarding Proposed Partial Settlement, In Re Sugar Antitrust Litigation, Northern District of California, U.S. District Court, February 1977.Google Scholar
[15]Polopolus, Leo and Wershow, James S.. “The Incidence, Nature and Effects of Price-Fixing Litigation in U.S. Food Industries,” paper presented before Southern Agricultural Economics Association, Houston, Texas, February 7, 1978.Google Scholar
[16]Posner, Richard A.Antitrust Law: An Economic Perspective, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976.Google Scholar
[17]Prochaska, Fred J. “Prices, Marketing Margins, and Structural Changes in the King Mackerel Marketing System,” paper presented to Southern Agricultural Economics Association, Houston, Texas, February 7, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] “State of North Carolina v. The Biltmore Company et al.,” CCH Trade Cases, 1975 (60,317).Google Scholar
[19] “U.S. v. American Bakeries et al.,” CCH Trade Cases, 1969 (72,908/72,874/72,827).Google Scholar
[20] “U.S. v. Arden-Mayfair et al,” CCH Trade Cases, 1973 (74,367).Google Scholar
[21] “U.S. v. National Broiler Marketing Association,” CCH Trade Cases, 1976 (60,801).Google Scholar