Competitive Absorption of Transportation Costs: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Eighty-first Congress, First Session, on S.236, a Bill to Clarify and Formulate a Consistent and Coordinated National Policy with Respect to the Transportation Costs in Interstate Commerce; to Strengthen the Antitrust Laws of the United States and to Provide for Their More Effective Enforcement; and to Promote Competition by Permitting Sellers to Have Access to Distant MarketsUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on S. 236 U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949 - 343 pages Considers legislation to clarify national policy with reference to uniform delivered pricing, zone pricing, freight equalization, and other transportation cost absorption procedures used in interstate commerce. |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
absorb freight agreement or conspiracy amendment answer Antitrust Act antitrust laws basing-point system basis believe BERGSON bids bill BRUBAKER buyers CHAIRMAN Chicago Clayton Act collusion Commission's committee compete competitors Congress consumers customers DAWKINS decision delivery effect f. o. b. mill pricing f. o. b. plant price f. o. b. pricing fact Federal Trade Commission freight absorption geographic pricing illegal Interstate Circuit KITTELLE legislation located lower price manufacturer Marquette meet competition method of competition monopoly opinion permit phantom freight Pittsburgh present price discrimination price fixing pricing methods pricing practices pricing system purchasers question result Rigid Steel Conduit Robinson-Patman Act sell seller Senator CAPEHART Senator KEFAUVER Senator MCMAHON Sherman Act Sherman Antitrust Act SIMON statement steel companies steel industry subcommittee Supreme Court tion Trade Commission Act transportation costs unfair method uniform delivered prices unlawful violation Wisconsin ZIMMERMAN zone pricing
Popular passages
Page 9 - that: In the exercise of its power to prescribe just and reasonable rates the Commission shall give due consideration, among other factors, to the effect of rates on the movement of traffic by the carrier or carriers for which the rates are prescribed;
Page 95 - The Senate bill contained a further proviso—• That nothing herein contained shall prevent discrimination in price in the same or different communities made in good faith to meet competition. This language is found in existing law, and in the opinion of the conferees is one of the obstacles to enforcement of the present Clayton Act. The
Page 113 - rebut the prima facie case by showing that his lower price or the furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser or purchasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor or the services or facilities furnished by a competitor. At
Page 330 - That authority to enforce compliance with sections 2, 3, 7, and 8 of this act by the persons respectively subject thereto is hereby vested * * * in the Civil Aeronautics Authority where applicable to air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938
Page 3 - any judicial proceeding involving an alleged violation of this Act, that there has been discrimination in price or services or facilities furnished, the burden of rebutting the prima facie ease thus made by showing justification shall be
Page 135 - was to advance the public interest by securing fair opportunity for the play of the contending forces ordinarily engendered by an honest desire for gain, and to this end it is essential that those who adventure their time, skill, and capital should have large freedom of action in the conduct of their own affairs.
Page 68 - a rebuttable presumption that the effect of such discrimination may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly or to injure, destroy or prevent competition. This
Page 296 - Under Count II the issue is simply whether the concurrent use of the basingpoint practice by each petitioner when it produces the adverse effect on price competition found by the Commission constitutes as to each petitioner an unfair method of competition within the meaning of Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Page 3 - Sec. 4. Section 2 of the Act entitled "An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes", approved October 15, 1914 (38 Stat. 730, as amended; 15 USC 13), is hereby further amended by adding immediately after subsection (f) thereof the following new subsection: "(g) As used in this section—■