List price

Last updated
This 1916 advertisement distinguishes the list price and a lower our special price. 1916 Griffith and Turner Co. - farm and garden supplies (1916) (14580164387).jpg
This 1916 advertisement distinguishes the list price and a lower our special price.

The list price, also known as the manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP), or the recommended retail price (RRP), or the suggested retail price (SRP) of a product is the price at which its manufacturer notionally recommends that a retailer sell the product.[ citation needed ]

Contents

Suggested pricing methods may conflict with competition theory, as they allow prices to be set higher than would be established by supply and demand. Resale price maintenance—fixing prices—goes further than suggesting prices, and is illegal in many countries.[ citation needed ]

Retailers may charge less than the suggested retail price, depending upon the actual wholesale cost of each item, usually purchased in bulk from the manufacturer, or in smaller quantities through a distributor. The suggested price is sometimes unrealistically high, so the seller can appear to be offering a discount.[ citation needed ] Some retailers apply discount stickers over top of original prices to indicate a discount to consumers.

List price often cannot be compared directly internationally as products may differ in detail, sometimes due to different regulations, and list prices may or may not include taxes.[ citation needed ]

India and Bangladesh

India and Bangladesh do not use list prices but instead have a maximum retail price.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the list price is referred to as a recommended retail price or RRP.

In 1998, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry prohibited the placing of RRP on electrical goods under the "Domestic Electrical Goods Order", but this ruling was lifted by the Competition Commission in February 2012. [1]

United States

In the United States, the list price is referred to as the manufacturer's suggested retail price or MSRP.

Under earlier US state Fair Trade statutes, the manufacturer was able to impose a fixed price for items.[ citation needed ] The fixed prices could offer some price protection to small merchants in competition against larger retail organizations. These were determined to be in restraint of trade. Many manufacturers have adopted MSRP, a price at which the manufacturer suggests the item be priced by a retailer. The term "suggested" can be misleading because in many cases, the MSRP is extremely high compared to the actual wholesale cost, opening the market to "deep discounters", who are able to sell products substantially below the MSRP but still make a profit. The discount stores benefit from exorbitant MSRPs because the discount offered increases the perceived value to customers.[ citation needed ]

Automobiles

A common use for MSRP can be seen in automobile sales in the United States. Prior to the spread of manufacturer's suggested retail pricing, there were no defined prices on vehicles, and car dealers were able to impose arbitrary markups, often with prices adjusted to what the salesperson thought the prospective purchaser would be willing to pay for a particular vehicle.

Currently, the MSRP, or "sticker price", the price of a vehicle as labeled by the manufacturer, is clearly labeled on the windows of all new vehicles, on a Monroney sticker, commonly called the "window sticker". The sticker was added as part of the Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958. [2] The MSRP is different from the actual price paid to the manufacturer by the dealer, which is known as the "invoice price". There are now numerous sources, such as online appraisal tools, that can be used to find the MSRP and invoice price. [3]

Minimum advertised price

A minimum advertised price (MAP) is the practice of a manufacturer providing marketing funds to a retailer contingent on the retailer advertising an end customer price at or above a specified level. Such agreements can be illegal in some countries when members and terms in the agreement match predefined legal criteria.[ citation needed ]

United States

Fixed pricing established between a distributor and seller or between two or more sellers may violate antitrust laws in the United States.

In Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. , 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007), the Supreme Court considered whether federal antitrust law established a per se ban on minimum resale price agreements and, instead, allow resale price maintenance agreements to be judged by the rule of reason, the usual standard applied to determine if there is a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. In holding that vertical price restraints should be judged by the rule of reason, the Court overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. , 220 U.S. 373 (1911).

Because the rule of reason applies, minimum RPM agreements may still be unlawful. In fact, in Leegin, the Court identified at least two ways in which a purely vertical minimum RPM agreement might be illegal. First, "[a] dominant retailer ... might request resale price maintenance to forestall innovation in distribution that decreases costs. A manufacturer might consider it has little choice but to accommodate the retailer's demands for vertical price restraints if the manufacturer believes it needs access to the retailer's distribution network". Second, "[a] manufacturer with market power... might use resale price maintenance to give retailers an incentive not to sell the products of smaller rivals or new entrants."

In both of these examples, an economically powerful firm uses the RPM agreement to exclude or raise entry barriers for its competition.

In addition, federal law is not the only source of antitrust claims as almost all of the states have their own antitrust laws.

United Kingdom

In the UK, in September 2010, an investigation was launched by the Office of Fair Trading into breaches of competition law by online travel agents and the hotel industry in relation to the advertised pricing of hotel rooms. As of April 2011, this was an administrative priority of the OFT.

Australia

In Australia, any sort of attempt at setting minimum advertised pricing or any retaliation against such a reseller is against the Competition and Consumer Act. [4]

It is also illegal for resellers to ask their suppliers to use recommended price lists to stop competitors from discounting. In most cases, a supplier may specify a maximum price for retail. [4]

There is an exception to this where the reseller is engaging in a loss-leading exercise. [4]

Rack rate

'Rack rate' is the travel industry term for the published full price of a hotel room, which the customer would pay by just walking into the hotel off the street and asking for a room. In some jurisdictions, a customer may be entitled to overstay a reservation by paying the rack rate.[ citation needed ] While the rack rate can be lower than the maximum rate that the hotel may be allowed to charge under local laws, it is higher than the rate most travel agents can book for their customers. Sometimes the terms "run of the house" or "walk-up rate" (in Europe usually: "walk-in rate") are used to refer to the same highest rate.[ citation needed ]

The term "rack rate" is also used by travel-related service providers, such as car rental companies or travel mobile phone rental companies, to refer to the same highest rate that customers would be charged with no prebookings.[ citation needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Robinson–Patman Act (RPA) of 1936 is a United States federal law that prohibits anticompetitive practices by producers, specifically price discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States antitrust law</span> American legal system intended to promote competition among businesses

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of businesses to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Price fixing</span> Agreement over prices between participants on the same side in a market

Price fixing is an anticompetitive agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.

Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market. Antitrust laws ensure businesses do not engage in competitive practices that harm other, usually smaller, businesses or consumers. These laws are formed to promote healthy competition within a free market by limiting the abuse of monopoly power. Competition allows companies to compete in order for products and services to improve; promote innovation; and provide more choices for consumers. In order to obtain greater profits, some large enterprises take advantage of market power to hinder survival of new entrants. Anti-competitive behavior can undermine the efficiency and fairness of the market, leaving consumers with little choice to obtain a reasonable quality of service.

The rule of reason is a legal doctrine used to interpret the Sherman Antitrust Act, one of the cornerstones of United States antitrust law. While some actions like price-fixing are considered illegal per se, other actions, such as possession of a monopoly, must be analyzed under the rule of reason and are only considered illegal when their effect is to unreasonablyrestrain trade. William Howard Taft, then Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, first developed the doctrine in a ruling on Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, which was affirmed in 1899 by the Supreme Court. The doctrine also played a major role in the 1911 Supreme Court case Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States.

In Economics and Law, exclusive dealing arises when a supplier entails the buyer by placing limitations on the rights of the buyer to choose what, who and where they deal. This is against the law in most countries which include the USA, Australia and Europe when it has a significant impact of substantially lessening the competition in an industry. When the sales outlets are owned by the supplier, exclusive dealing is because of vertical integration, where the outlets are independent exclusive dealing is illegal due to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, however, if it is registered and approved it is allowed. While primarily those agreements imposed by sellers are concerned with the comprehensive literature on exclusive dealing, some exclusive dealing arrangements are imposed by buyers instead of sellers.

Resale price maintenance (RPM) or, occasionally, retail price maintenance is the practice whereby a manufacturer and its distributors agree that the distributors will sell the manufacturer's product at certain prices, at or above a price floor or at or below a price ceiling. If a reseller refuses to maintain prices, either openly or covertly, the manufacturer may stop doing business with it. Resale price maintenance is illegal in many jurisdictions.

A catalog merchant is a form of retailing. The typical merchant sells a wide variety of household and personal products, with many emphasizing jewelry. Unlike a self-serve retail store, most of the items are not displayed; customers select the products from printed catalogs in the store and fill out an order form. The order is brought to the sales counter, where a clerk retrieves the items from the warehouse area to a payment and checkout station.

Vertical restraints are competition restrictions in agreements between firms or individuals at different levels of the production and distribution process. Vertical restraints are to be distinguished from so-called "horizontal restraints", which are found in agreements between horizontal competitors. Vertical restraints can take numerous forms, ranging from a requirement that dealers accept returns of a manufacturer's product, to resale price maintenance agreements setting the minimum or maximum price that dealers can charge for the manufacturer's product.

Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), is a US antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co.Dr Miles had ruled that vertical price restraints were illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Leegin established that the legality of such restraints are to be judged based on the rule of reason.

Under a unilateral policy a manufacturer, without any agreement with the reseller, announces a minimum resale price and refuses to make further sales to any reseller that sells below the announced price. Unilateral policy is a form of resale price maintenance that enables a manufacturer to influence the price at which its distributors and dealers resell its products without a formal contract regarding the resale price. The policy was first identified in United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919).

Green market products are previously owned products that have been previously used and put back into productive use. These products are often repaired, refurbished and recycled by brokers, resellers or the original manufacturer. They are suitable for resale to customers as a lower cost alternative to buying new goods from standard distribution channels.

Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which reaffirmed the law that fixing a maximum price was illegal per se. This rule was reversed in 1997 by State Oil Co. v. Khan, which held that maximum price-setting was not inherently anti-competitive and not always a violation of antitrust law, and should therefore be evaluated for legality under the rule of reason rather than a per se rule.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Resale Prices Acts</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Resale Prices Act 1964 was a consolidation Act which when passed, now considered all resale price agreements to be against public interest unless proven otherwise.

United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919), is a United States antitrust law case in which the United States Supreme Court noted that a company has the power to decide with whom to do business. Per the Colgate Doctrine, a company may unilaterally terminate business with any other company without triggering a violation of the antitrust laws.

The invoice price is the actual price that the end-customer retailer pays to the manufacturer or distributor for a product.

United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29 (1960), was a 1960 decision of the United States Supreme Court limiting the so-called Colgate doctrine, which substantially insulates unilateral refusals to deal with price-cutters from the antitrust laws. The Parke, Davis & Co. case held that, when a company goes beyond "the limited dispensation" of Colgate by taking affirmative steps to induce adherence to its suggested prices, it puts together a combination among competitors to fix prices in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition, the Court held that when a company abandons an illegal practice because it knows the US Government is investigating it and contemplating suit, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to hold the case that follows moot and dismiss it without granting relief sought against the illegal practice.

United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150 (1940), is a 1940 United States Supreme Court decision widely cited for the proposition that price-fixing is illegal per se. The Socony case was, at least until recently, the most widely cited case on price fixing.

A hub-and-spoke conspiracy is a legal construct or doctrine of United States antitrust and criminal law. In such a conspiracy, several parties ("spokes") enter into an unlawful agreement with a leading party ("hub"). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained the concept in these terms:

In a "hub-and-spoke conspiracy," a central mastermind, or "hub," controls numerous "spokes," or secondary co-conspirators. These co-conspirators participate in independent transactions with the individual or group of individuals at the "hub" that collectively further a single, illegal enterprise.

Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., (1911), was a United States Supreme Court case on anti-trust grounds that ruled that resale price maintenance, a form of vertical restraint, is illegal per se.

References

  1. ↑ Competition Commission, CC lifts Domestic Electrical Goods Order, published 1 February 2012, archived 25 July 2013, accessed 3 June 2021
  2. ↑ "Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price: MSRP Meaning & Details Explained - DealDriver". www.dealdriver.ai. Retrieved 2023-07-02.
  3. ↑ "How much is my car worth? Free car value appraisal | Edmunds". Edmunds.com .
  4. 1 2 3 "Relevant sections of the Competition and Consumer Act". Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. Retrieved 15 November 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.