The fight for price maintenance is not yet completely settled, despite, the decisions in Dr. Miles Medical Company v. Parks \u26 Sons Company, 220 U. S. 373, 31 Sup. Ct. 376, 55 L. Ed. 502, and Bauer \u26 Cie v. O\u27Donnell, 229 U. S. 1, 33 Sup. Ct. 616, 58 L. Ed. 1041, which held invalid contracts, whether nominally of agency, or of sale, between manufacturer and wholesaler or jobber whereby the latter in purchasing agreed himself to maintain and to sell only to others who would maintain a schedule of prices established by the manufacturer. But there are more ways than one of maintaining prices. One of these is to refuse to sell to persons who do not in fact maintain the established and \u22recommended\u22 schedule. Can the legislature or can the courts compel a manufacturer to sell to any person who offers the price? The first of these questions is suggested and the second raised for decision in the case of the Great Atlantic \u26 Pacific Tea Co. v. Cream of Wheat Co., 227 Fed. 46, decided November 10, 1915, by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
展开▼
机译：尽管在Miles Medical Company诉Parks \ u26 Sons Company案中，美国判例第220卷第373页，但判决仍未完全解决。 Ct。 376，55 L. Ed。 502，和Bauer \ u26 Cie诉O \ u27Donnell，《美国判例汇编》第229卷第1期第33页。 Ct。 616，58 L. Ed。 1041，它在制造商与批发商或批发商之间持有无效的合同，无论是名义上的代理权还是销售权，批发商或批发商在批发商或批发商之间同意自己维持并仅向将维持制造商确定的价格表的其他人出售。但是，保持价格的方法不止一种。其中之一是拒绝向实际上不遵守既定和推荐时间表的人出售产品。立法机关或法院可以强迫制造商将其出售给任何提供价格的人吗？对于第一个问题，提出了第一个问题，在大大西洋地区诉太平洋茶公司诉Cream Cream of Wheat Co.案，227 Fed中提出了第二个问题，以供决策。第46巡回上诉法院于1915年11月10日由美国第二巡回上诉法院裁定。
展开▼
