Document Type

Article

Citation Information

Please cite to the original publication

Abstract

The basic issue in this exchange is whether Professors Gould and Yamey have materially weakened the case I made for the legality of resale price maintenance (r.p.m.) desired by a manufacturer who is not in collusion with other manufacturers. I believe they have not. In this response I will try to demonstrate that their Rejoinder's strictures on welfare economics are irrelevant, its price theory mistaken, and its demands for certainty one-sided and unreasonable.

Date of Authorship for this Version

1968

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS