Search

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of channels of distribution. In reference to the operating features of marketing institutions and the relations between buyers and sellers the Freed Oil Co., Inc., et al. v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. and the American Oil Co., the Universal Brands Inc., et al. v. Phillip Morris Inc., et al., the Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp. v. Diversified Packaging Corp., et al., and the Arlie Mack Moore, et al. v. Jas. H. Matthews & Co., Rest Haven Memorial Association, et al. cases are cited among others.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing from the period of 1975-1977. The United States v. American Building Maintenance case is cited. In this case the U.S. Supreme Court limited the extent to which Section 7 of the Clayton Act could impinge on the consolidation and mergers of corporations. The United States v. Citizens and Southern National Bank, et al. case is cited in reference to the legal issues pertaining to holding companies. The Continental T.V. Inc., et al. v. GTE-Sylvania, Inc. case is cited in reference to antitrust legislation as it pertains to franchise agreements.

The article reports on news pertaining to the regulation of unfair competition related to the field of marketing. A corrective marketing requirement issued by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is discussed in relation to corrupt practices associated with the tire manufacturer Firestone Tire & Rubber Company. The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit ruled against the FTC in the court case the FTC v. Simeon Management Corporation. Regulations implemented by the FTC with regards to the professional practices of door-to-door product vendors are discussed. Regulations relating to sales promotion are also mentioned.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of unfair competition. In 1974 the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued several complaints against U.S. companies for bait-and-switch advertising practices. Companies found guilty of such practices may be required to place "consumer warning notices" in future advertisements. A U.S. District Court ruled that automobile manufacturers may not claim superiority in their product's handling to other automobiles without a reasonable basis to support those claims. In 1974 the FTC ruled that it is unfair for a company to advertise for a weight loss treatment or drug that hasn't been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of channels of distribution. In reference to the operating features of marketing institutions the La Maur, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co. and Leonard H. Lavin and Co. and the Fairfield County Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. Narragansett Brewing Co. cases are cited. In reference to the relations between buyers and sellers the Clairol Inc. v. Cosmetics Plus, the Richard E. Driskill v. Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Inc., et al., and the James M. Bacon et al. v. Texaco, Inc. cases are cited among others.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the United States v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., et al. and the Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, et al. cases are cited. In the former case a U.S. District Court ruled that Falstaff's acquisition of the Narragansett Brewing Co. did not constitute restraint of trade per section 7 of the Clayton Act. In reference to market exclusion tactics the Burton Supply Co. v. Wheel Horse Products, Inc., the Fuchs Sugar & Syrups, Inc. v. Amstar Corp. and the United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph cases are cited.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of channels of distribution. In reference to the operating features of marketing institutions the Woodbury Daily Times Co., Inc., et al. v. Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service, et al., the Argus Inc. and Interphoto Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., et al., and the California Furniture Co., Inc. v. Rhodes, Inc. and Kincaid Furniture Co., Inc. cases are cited. In reference to the relations between buyers and sellers the Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp. and Federated Department Stores, Inc., the Robert R. Koefoot, M.D., et al. v. American College of Surgeons, et al., The Victoria House, Inc. v. Fisher Camuto Corp., and the Nordic Bank, et al. v. The Trend Group, et al. cases are cited.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of price competition. In reference to price discrimination the Mario De Modena dba Sixth Avenue Pharmacy, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et al. Portland Druggists Association, Inc. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al., the Indian Coffee Corp. and Penn-Western Food Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co. and Folger Coffee Co., and the Computronics, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., and the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System cases are cited. In reference to price control the Pink Supply Corp. v. Hiebert Inc., et al. and the Francis D. K. S. Tom, D.M.D., dba Diversified Dental Services, and Dentaguard Inc. v. Hawaii Dental Services cases are cited.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of channels of distribution. In reference to the relations between buyers and sellers the Gillette Tire Jobbers of Louisiana, Inc. v. Appliance Industries, Inc. et al., the Metrix Warehouse, Inc. v. Daimler-Benz A.G. and Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., the Mozart Co. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., the Computer Place, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. and Computerland, Inc., the Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp. and Federated Department Stores, Inc., and the Paul Bender et al. v. Southland Corp. cases are cited.

The article presents U.S. legal developments and cases in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic method. In reference to market control the Federal Trade Commission v. Warner Communications and the United States v. Waste Management, Inc. & EMW Ventures, Inc. cases are cited. The United States v. Missouri Valley Construction Co. case is cited in reference to collusive practices. In reference to market exclusion tactics the Weiss v. York Hospital, the Pennsylvania Dental Assn. v. Medical Service Assn. of Pennsylvania, and the Sanitation Equipment v. Thetford Corp. cases are cited. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) view on predatory pricing as it pertains to the Robinson-Patman Act is also discussed.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the Federal Trade Commission v. Bass Brothers Enterprises, et al. and the State of North Carolina v. P.I.A. Asheville, Inc., et al. cases are cited. Civil penalty charges as they pertain to the provisions of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act are discussed. In June, 1984 the U.S. Department of Justice announced its Merger Guidelines Revisions. In reference to collusive practices the National Collegiate Athletic Association v. the University of Oklahoma et. al and the Davidowitz v. San Diego Dental Society cases are cited. In reference to market exclusion tactics the Adjustor's Replace-a-Car v. Agency Rent-a-Car case is cited.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the Parrish's Cake Decorating Supplies, Inc. v. Wilton Enterprises, Inc. and the Pillsbury Co. case is cited. In reference to collusive practices the Union Processing Corp. v. Atkin and the Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp. cases are cited. In recognition of market exclusion tactics the Diversified Industries v. AT&T, the Bayou Bottling Co. v. Dr. Pepper Co., and the Langenderfer v. S.E. Johnson cases are cited.

This article presents legal developments in marketing regarding the regulation of monopolistic methods, specifically market control, collusive practices, and market exclusion tactics. The case of Joseph Ciccone & Sons, Inc. v. Eastern Industries, Inc., et. al. discusses predatory pricing behavior and price cutting. The case of Montana v. Super America involves parallel pricing behavior. The United States Supreme Court case of Maryland v. United States involves the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act of 1973.

The article presents the legal developments in marketing regarding the regulation of monopolistic methods. In relation to market control, the case of United States v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. is discussed, involving corporate acquisitions in the depressed timber industry. Relating to collusive practices, the case of United States v. First National Supermarkets is discussed, focusing on the managers of three supermarkets that met weekly in parking lots late at night to jointly determine what "specials" would be offered by each of them and at what prices. regarding market exclusion tactics, the case MCI Communications Corp. v. AT&T Co. is discussed, involving regulated monopolies and predatory tariffs. In the United States Supreme Court case Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, the reimbursement of insured claims is discussed.

The article presents legal developments in marketing relating to the regulation of channels of distribution. Regarding exclusive dealing arrangements and relations between buyer and sellers, the case The Sports Center, Inc. v. Riddell, Inc., Judge Little Company and Hale & Jones, Inc. is discussed, involving issues of illegal horizontal combinations of distributors. The case of Medical Arts Pharmacy of Stamford, Inc. et al. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc. is discussed, involving issues of illegal price fixing. The case Family Boating Center, Inc. v. Washington Area Marine Dealers Association, Inc. et al. is discussed, involving the question of whether group boycotts constitute violations of antitrust laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court conditions the legal environment of marketing, and over the past six years, its decisions have both limited and expanded the constraints on marketers. Constraints have been imposed on marketing operations, particularly pricing and channels of distribution, on marketing organizations, and on the relevant regulatory procedures. Indications are that future changes may be imminent, particularly in allowing greater marketing autonomy within a private enterprise system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents legal developments in marketing relating to the regulation of unfair competition. Regarding advertising, a case involving ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., et al. is discussed, in which the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleged the misrepresentation of nutrition information labels of several food product lines. Regarding nonadvertising promotional methods, a case involving Interstate Publishers Service, Inc. et al. is discussed, in which the FTC prohibited a company selling magazine subscriptions from using deceptive business practices.

The article presents legal developments in marketing relating to the regulation of unfair competition. Regarding advertising, a case involving Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. is discussed, involving charges of false advertising against the company by the United States Federal Trade Commission. Regarding nonadvertising promotional methods, the case State of Washington v. Reader's Digest Association is discussed, involving the effects of federal fair trade law on state fair trade laws when a respondent has been charged under both sets of statutes.

The article presents legal developments in marketing relating to the regulation of unfair competition. Regarding advertising, a case involving School Services, Inc., et al. is discussed, in which the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered a finishing school and it's franchiser to stop using deceptive selling practices. Regarding nonadvertising promotional methods, United States v. George R. Hoffman and Royce George Hoffman is discussed, in which the president and vice-president of a firm found guilty of deceptive practices were themselves found guilty of violating an FTC order.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the United States v. Phillipsburg National Bank and Trust Co., et al. case is cited among others. In reference to collusive practices the Tropic Film Corporation v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, Paramount Film Distributing Corporation and Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. case is cited. In reference to market exclusion tactics the Curtis C. Flood v. Bowie K. Kuhn, et al. case is cited among others.

The article presents legal developments in marketing relating to the regulation of competition. Regarding price discrimination, the case "Callaway Mills Company and Callaway Mills Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission," and "Cabin Crafts Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission," are discussed, involving charges of price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act. Regarding resale price maintenance, the case "Heublein, Inc. v. Kessler," is discussed, in which a retailer was unable to prevent the issuance of an injunction against his price-cutting practices. Regarding price control, the cases "Davey Bros., Inc. v. Stop & Shop, Inc.," and "Charles E. Dorey v. Stop & Shop, Inc.," are discussed, in which the retail food chain successfully defended itself against charges of selling below cost.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus on the regulation of competition. Regarding price discrimination, the case "Bergjans Farm Dairy Co. v. Sanitary Milk Producers" is discussed, involving alleged violations of the Sherman Act and the Robinson-Patman Act. Regarding resale price maintenance, the cases "Joseph J. Broussard v. Socony Mobil Oil Company, Inc.," "Meus LeBlanc v. Continental Oil Company," and "Lee Roy Guidry v. Continental Oil Company," are discussed, in which it was found that a major oil company may not use a short-term service station lease as a coercive device to achieve resale price maintenance. Regarding price control, the Amendments to the Connecticut Unfair Sales Practice Act is discussed.

The article presents legal developments in marketing relating to the regulation of competition. Regarding price discrimination, the case Packer's Supermarkets, Inc. v. Berry Packaging Corp. and Nathan Levine is discussed, involving allegations of price discrimination. Regarding resale price maintenance, the case National Distillers and Chemical Corporation v. R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. is discussed, involving a temporary injunction against a price cutting retailer of liquor. Regarding price control, the amendments to the Utah Unfair Practices Act and Maine Unfair Sales Act are discussed.

The article presents legal case studies involving marketing law, price discrimination, exclusive arrangements between buyers and sellers and alleged violations of the Robinson-Patman Act. The case of Shore Gas & Oil Company Inc. v. Humble Oil & Refining Company regarding what a seller attempting to recover damages from a competing seller must prove to recover treble damages. The cases of Shreveport Macaroni Mfg. Co. Inc. v. U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Western Fruit Growlers Sales Co. v. U.S. Federal Trade Commission, involve companies that disagree with allegations against them that they are in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of price competition. In reference to price discrimination the United States v. The Borden Company, et al. case and the Sunshine Biscuits, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission case is cited among others. In reference to resale price maintenance the Mead Johnson & Company v. Columbus Vitamin & Cosmetic Distributors, Inc. case is cited among others.

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of price competition. In reference to price discrimination, the case of Exquisite Form Brassiere Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission is presented. The legal system's findings involving Section 2 of the Robinson-Patman Act are reported. A second case involving the alleged conflict of state and federal law, State of Wisconsin v. Texaco Inc., is presented. A third case involving the Swanee Paper Corporation is presented and also centers on a contentious element of the Robinson-Patman Act.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with focus on the regulation of price competition. One of the developments describes the case of White House Milk Co. Inc. v. John W. Reynolds Atty. Gen., et al., dealing with Wisconsin state laws concerning the pricing of dairy products, which may be unconstitutional. Another development discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., in which the company was found guilty of illegal methods of price maintenance by refusing to deal. A third development focuses on the case of State of Minnesota v. Applebaums Food Markets Inc., dealing with an alleged violation of a state sales-below-cost law.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus on the regulation of price competition. One of the developments describes the case of American Motor Specialties Co. Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, in which clarified the legality of buyers forming buyer groups to ensure a discount for purchasing larger quantities than would be possible by individual buyers. Another development describes the case of Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-on-Drugs Inc., in which the New Jersey Supreme Court found that a foreign corporation could not enforce a fair trade contract in New Jersey if it was conducting business in that state without the proper certification.

The article presents information on legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In regard to market control, the article discusses the issue of parent corporation liability (Jim Walter Corporation) in an action against a subsidiary involved in an acquisition. The Jim Walter Corp. protested the action, alleging it violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission's rejection of the argument is detailed in the article. In regard to collusive practices, the article discusses National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, where the National Society of Professional Engineers adopted a canon of ethics that forbade its members from submitting competitive bids to customers, which is discussed in terms of the Sherman Act.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of channels of distribution. In relation to the operating features of marketing institutions the Sargent-Welch Scientific Co. v. Ventron Corp. case is cited. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit evaluated the case on the basis of interpreting sections of the antitrust legislation the Sherman Act. They remanded the case to a lower court for further review. In reference to buyer and seller relationships the Pitchford Scientific Instruments v. Pepi Inc. et al. case is cited.

The article discusses U.S. legal developments and cases in marketing relative to the regulation of channels of distribution. In reference to the operating features of marketing institutions the Continental T.V. Inc., et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. case is cited. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 1967 ruling which made it illegal for a manufacturer-supplier to set customer and territorial restrictions on its distributor-dealers. In reference to the relations between buyers and sellers the Heatransfer Corp. v. Volkswagen, A.C., et al. case is cited.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of product characteristics. In 1976 the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stated that the definition of "consumer products" as it pertains to antitrust legislation limits the applicability to "personal products." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposed a regulation in 1976 which would revise the tread label and point-of-sale information requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards regulation. The first legal case initiated by the FTC in regard to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was filed in 1976.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of channels of distribution. In reference to the operating features of marketing institutions the Clairol Inc. v. Boston Discount Center of Berkley Inc., et al. and the Tomac Inc. v. the Coca-Cola Company cases are cited. In reference to the relations between buyers and sellers the Southern Concrete Co. v. United States Steel Corporation et al., the James E. Northern and Shirley Northern v. McGraw-Edison et al., and the James Milonas, et al. v. Amerada Hess Corp. cases are cited among others.

The article reports on legal developments relating to the regulation of product characteristics in the field of marketing in the U.S. The author discusses product warranties issued after the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in relation to product standard regulations. The disclosure of warranty terms is also discussed. Information about a trade regulation associated with product quality in the used automobile industry is included. A U.S. Federal Trade Commission regulation concerning consumer protection within the credit industry is also mentioned.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of price competition. In reference to price discrimination the Harbor Banana Distributors, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, the National Auto Brokers Corp., et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al., the Ambook Enterprises v. Time Inc., et al., and the James Freeman v. Chicago Title and Trust Company cases are mentioned among others. In reference to resale price maintenance the Capital Temporaries of Hartford, Inc. et al. v. The Olsten Corp. and the Alabama Optometric Association et al. v. The Alabama State Board of Health et al. cases are cited. In reference to price control the James Milonas et al. v. Amerada Hess Corp. case is cited.

The article presents U.S. legal developments in marketing relative to the regulation of product characteristics. In 1974 the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruled against pyramid marketing plans. The same year the FTC also issued a complaint against a hair implant company for not fully disclosing the potential medical risks associated with their product. The Consumer Protection Bureau of the FTC in conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began investigating the protein supplement industry in 1974. The FTC's investigation into automobile warranties on new and used cars is also discussed.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus on the regulation of channels of distribution. One of the developments describes the case of Systemcare Inc. v. Wang Laboratories Inc., et al., in which the court decided that a tying claim cannot exist without the existence of a conspiracy. Another development describes the case of Trans Sport Inc. v. Starter Sportswear Inc., which clarified that a manufacturer's policy against transshipment of licensed sports league jackets does not establish a willful intent to include intrabrand competition.

The article presents information on U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the Federal Trade Commission v. Promodes S. A. Red Food Stores, Inc. case is cited. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that high market share itself is not a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which limits mergers and acquisitions. The H. J. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone case is cited in reference to collusive behavior. In reference to market exclusion tactics the A. A. Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Rose Acre Farms case is cited. The defendant was found guilty of predatory price discrimination under the Sherman Act and unlawful price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of product characteristics. In reference to packaging and labeling the Federal Trade Commission v. Dudley M. Hughes dba Dudley M. Hughes Funeral Co. case is cited. The District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Funeral Rule does not violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Legal developments pertaining to credit terms and conditions of sale are also discussed. In 1989 the FTC ruled that an agreement among new automobile dealers to close on certain days of the week constitutes an unfair method of competition and violates U.S. antitrust law.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of price competition. In reference to price discrimination the Monahan's Marine, Inc. v. Boston Whaler, Inc., et al. case is cited. The case focused on price discrimination and the restraint of trade. In 1988 the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged six book publishers with price discrimination on the basis of violating the Robinson-Patman Act. In reference to price control the Tafford E. Oltz v. St. Peter's Community Hospital case is cited. The case focused on conspiracy of restraint of trade.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of price competition. In reference to price discrimination the Ricky Hasbrouk, dba Rick's Texaco, et al. v. Texaco, Inc. case is cited. The case focused on the legality of functional discounts as they pertain to the provisions in the Robinson-Patman Act. In reference to price control the Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp. and The Jeanery Inc., et al. v. James Jeans, Inc. cases are cited. Both cases focused on the legal issues associated with price cutting and restraint of trade. Reference is also made to the 1988 U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) study regarding resale price maintenance cases.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to collusive behavior The Treasurer, Inc. v. The Philadelphia National Bank and Mellon Bank, N. A., the Phototron Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., Fuqua Industries and Colorgraft Corp., and the U.S. v. Wickes Companies, Inc. cases are cited. The first two cases listed focused on antitrust legislation as it pertains to the merger of corporations. The latter case focused on the premerger requirements detailed in the provisions of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976.

The article discusses legal developments in marketing with focus on the regulation of channels of distribution. One of the developments describes the case of Empire Volkswagen Inc. v. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., which shows that an automobile dealership agreement may prelude selling competing automobiles from the same location as the manufacturer's automobiles. Another development discusses the case of Patrick W. Sharkley v. Security Bank & Trust Co. This case illustrates that a bank's insistence that a customer purchase real estate to secure a loan for the purchase of other real estate is a violation of the antitying provisions of the Bank Holding Act.

The article presents legal developments in marketing with particular focus given to the regulation of channels of distribution. One development describes the case of Jules Link, et al. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc., et al., which focused on standardized time for non-warranty repairs on automobiles. Another case, that of O.S.C. Corp. v. Apple Computer Inc., focused on the ban of mail orders of its retail distributors. A third development describes the case of The Great Escape Inc. v. Union City Body Co. Inc., et al., which focused on an exclusive deal arrangement between the two companies.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of price competition. In reference to price discrimination the C.E.D. Mobilphone Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp. case is cited. In reference to price control the World of Sleep, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co., et al., the George Pierce et al. v. Ramsey Winch Co., the Landmark Development Corp., et al. v. Chambers Corp., et al., the Northwest Publications Inc., v. John D. Crumb, et al., and the Gilchrist Machinery Co., Inc. v. Komatsu America Corp., et al. cases are cited.

The article presents U.S. legal cases and developments in marketing relative to the regulation of monopolistic methods. In reference to market control the Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. Arco Carribean Inc., et al., the Christian Schmidt Brewing Co., and Stroh Brewery Co., Inc., et al. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc., et al., and the United States v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., et al. cases are cited. The above mentioned cases concern the antitrust issues pertaining to the consolidation and mergers of corporations. In reference to collusive behavior the Bull Memorial Hospital v. Blue Cross of Indiana and the United States v. Capitol Services cases are cited.

The article presents U.S. legal developments pertaining to commercial legislation. The Frank J. Ostrofe v. H. S. Crocker, Inc. case is cited. In this case a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that an employee of a company charged with conspiracy to restrain trade has legal grounds to sue the company for damages. The court said antitrust injury can be suffered by parties other than the trade members against whom it was directed. The United States v. CBS, Inc., the United States v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., and the Eurim-Pharm GmbH v. Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Group Limited, Pfizer GmbH, Pfizer Italiana, S.p.A., Pfizer France, S.A. cases are also cited.

The article presents legal developments in marketing related to the regulation of channels of distribution. Regarding the operating features of marketing institutions, the case of Deauville Corp. et al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al. is discussed, involving allegations of attempted monopolization of regional shopping mall retail space. Regarding exclusive dealing arrangements and relations between buyer and sellers, the case Midwestern Waffles, Inc. v. Waffle House, Inc., et al. is discussed, in which a franchisee attempted to show injury as the result of tie-in arrangements between the franchise license and equipment used to run the franchise. The case United States v. Dairymen, Inc. is also discussed.

This article presents legal developments in marketing relating to the regulation of monopolistic methods. Regarding market control, the United States Supreme Court case BankAmerica Corp. et al. v. United States is discussed, examining the issue of whether the Clayton Act prohibits interlocking directorates between banks and competing insurance companies. Regarding collusive practices, the case O.S.C. Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc. is discussed, in which a manufacturer attempted to prohibit its dealers from selling its products by mail order. Regarding market exclusion tactics, the case Cantor v. Multiple Listing Service is discussed, involving the prohibition of competitive real estate signage .

The article presents legal developments in marketing relating to the regulation of channels of distribution, specifically exclusive dealing arrangements and the relations between buyers and sellers. The case of Joyce Beverages of New York, Inc. v. Royal Crown Cola Co. is discussed, involving exclusive distributorship agreements between soft drink manufacturers and their licensee bottlers. The cases of General Business Systems v. North American Philips Business Systems, Inc. and N. V. Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken, and North American Philips Corp. et al. v. General Business Systems and Shasta General Systems involve manufacturers' restrictions imposed on its dealers, allegations of price fixing, and tying arrangements.