Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
A Focus on the Resale Price Maintenance- under the Vertical Trade Restraints in the Competition Law
Resale Price maintenance,Per Ser Illegal,Rule of Reason,Non-Price Restrains,Concerted Action,Comprehensive Judgment,
|Publication Year :||2020|
我國於民國104年雖然有重新翻修公平法,惟,垂直限制之價格限制與非價格限制目前還是分別立法,分開處理,故而,公平會在判斷違法性,會產生有不同之結果;前者限制轉售價格之法律效果原則禁止,例外輔以正當合理判斷,也就是只要滿足法條之文義規定既該當違法;後者,原則合法例外違法,採合理審查,並搭配市場力(market power),市場結構(market structure),交易條件,等綜合考量。惟,結合國內外許多實證資料文獻顯示,價格垂直價格限制與非價格垂直限制對於限制市場競爭所帶來的效果差異性不大,故而本文建議可刪除目前第19條限制轉售價格之規定,直接使用第20條第1款或第5款判斷既可。
The main purpose of this thesis are discussion on the essential of Article 19 in the Fair Trade Law of Taiwan, and, how to regulate release price maintenance (RPM) is reasonable or not. Combination with the enforcement rule of Fair Trade Article 25 to determine by RPM is reasonable or not. In this paper, not only include the relationship between Article19 and 20 subsection 1 and 5, but also the constitutive requirements issues about the Article19.
Owing to new information technology innovations which are bringing about the booming of electric business (E-commerce/On-Line Sale), it changes the consumer’s purchasing behaviors, such as from Physical Access to Internet. As a result, whole the circulation market has a big change in market structure and marketing strategies. Internet Access compares to Physical, it can save much operation cost such as employee training, rental. Therefore, if the same products but get the different price, such as the Internet Access Stores sales price much cheaper than Physical ones, it will happen free riders。In order to keep the competence of products, Prevention of free-riding effects, and Promotion of entries of new businesses or brands, the supplier would enforce PRM.
Due to Article19 and 20 subsection 1 and 5 are difficult in separating, however, in Taiwan, we still separating the regulation into vertical price regulation and none price regulation which in different provision in the Act. The former is based on “per se illegal” combine the justifiable reasons; while the latter “rule of reason”, which need to be take many factors such as market share, and structure market into consideration. According to many Economic Empirical Analysis, it demonstrate that both of them, the outcome of the market influence are not divergence, with a view to preventing complex for Fair Trade Commission to measure, in this thesis, cancel the Article 19.
|Appears in Collections:||科際整合法律學研究所|
Files in This Item:
|956.48 kB||Adobe PDF|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.