Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to codify into statute a Supreme Court ruling of 1911 which made vertical price fixing illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act; it would not have reversed two recent antitrust decisions as provided in the bill.

Ask AI
Amendment Number
415
Description
Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to codify into statute a Supreme Court ruling of 1911 which made vertical price fixing illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act; it would not have reversed two recent antitrust decisions as provided in the bill.
Purpose
An amendment to eliminate the provisions of the bill which change the evidentiary standards necessary to obtain a jury trial in price fixing cases. Under the bill, sufficient evidence for a jury trial exists if a plaintiff can demonstrate that a communication concerning price competition was received by a supplier from a retailer and that in response to the communication, the supplier terminated a supply contract with a rival retailer. The amendment would also eliminate the language of the bill making price restraints automatically illegal regardless of whether or not a specific minimum price has been set and would let stand recentSupreme Court decisions holding that in order to obtain a jury trial, a plaintiff must provide direct or circumstantial evidence that a supplier and retailer consciously intended to maintain resale price levels and that a specific minimum price agreement must be established for a per se violation of price fixing laws to exist.
Congress
101
Type
HAMDT
Latest Action Date
Apr 18, 1990
Latest Action Text
On agreeing to the Douglas amendment (A001) Failed by recorded vote: 155 - 242 (Roll no. 71).
Latest Action Time
16:23:41
Submitted Date
Apr 18, 1990
Chamber
House of Representatives
Update Date
Jul 1, 2021
Amendment 415 — Informed