Resale Price Maintenance deals with selected countries: Canada, the United States of America, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The main emphasis is placed on two subjects, namely, the effects of resale price maintenance and its termination, where this has taken place, as disclosed in official and private investigations; and the development of public policy measures, including consideration of the problems encountered in their implementation. B. S. Yamey, in the volume, defines the major economic issues involved in resale price maintenance and presents a compendium of arguments that have been employed in the debate on resale price maintenance.Taken together, these country studies constitute a compendium of the arguments which have been deployed in debates on resale price maintenance; all the major issues and most of the minor ones are considered or at least mentioned in one or more of the studies in the course of the review of developments in public policy. An introductory chapter, by the editor, sets the scene with an analytical discussion of the major economic issues. This volume considers the historical development of the practice of resale price maintenance and its extent and scope when at its height. It also deals with resale price maintenance in the European Common Market. Dealing with the practice in the constituent countries and also as it is affected by the emerging Common Market policy towards restraint on competition, the volume focus on developments in public policy.Resale Price Maintenance carefully examines all major and many minor issues covers a wide range of trades and products that have been affected by resale price maintenance, and provides fruitful analyses of various empirical studies that have been made on the restraint and/or advancement of commerce.

The main object of this major work is to analyse the laws of monopolies and mergers in the United States , the European Community, Germany and the United Kingdom. It is not, however, possible to explain the rules on monopolies and mergers outside the context of the rules on restrictive arrangements (restraints of trade); many of the concepts under which the activities of a dominant firm may be treated as monopolistic derive directly from the categories of prohibited conduct under the cartel provisions. The work is essentially a country by country analysis of the anti-trust rules of the four jurisdictions mentioned. Accordingly the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome, the German Law Against Restraints of Competition, the UK Fair Trading Act, Restrictive Trade Practices Act and Competition Act are all examined in detail. Where appropriate, subsidiary legislation also, in particular the various regulations issued by the European Council and the European Commission, are dealt with.

Committee Serial No. 3. Includes following court cases and documents related to charges of monopoly against petroleum companies. a. U.S. v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Standard Oil Co. of California, Texas Co., Gulf Oil Corp. Answer of Defendant Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (p. 839-902). b. U.S. v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Standard Oil Co. of California, Texas Co., Gulf Oil Corp., Sept. 1, 1953, compilation of documents submitted by Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. Includes documents relating to Iraq Petroleum Co. and New East Development Corp. (p. 903-1054); documents related to Arabian American Oil Co., and Trans-Arabian Pipeline Co. (p. 1055-1228); and documents related to Socony's purchase contracts with Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. and Middle East Pipelines, Ltd. (p. 1229-1521). c. Includes text of agreement between Iran and the National Iranian Oil Co. and the Gulf Oil Co., Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, Standard Oil Co. of California, Texas Co., Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., de Bataafsche Petroleum Maatschappij, and Compagnie Francaise Petroles (p. 1563-1651). Reviews the current administration of antitrust and anti-monopoly laws.

Committee Serial No. 3. Includes following court cases and documents related to charges of monopoly against petroleum companies. a. U.S. v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Standard Oil Co. of California, Texas Co., Gulf Oil Corp. Answer of Defendant Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (p. 839-902). b. U.S. v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Standard Oil Co. of California, Texas Co., Gulf Oil Corp., Sept. 1, 1953, compilation of documents submitted by Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. Includes documents relating to Iraq Petroleum Co. and New East Development Corp. (p. 903-1054); documents related to Arabian American Oil Co., and Trans-Arabian Pipeline Co. (p. 1055-1228); and documents related to Socony's purchase contracts with Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. and Middle East Pipelines, Ltd. (p. 1229-1521). c. Includes text of agreement between Iran and the National Iranian Oil Co. and the Gulf Oil Co., Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, Standard Oil Co. of California, Texas Co., Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., de Bataafsche Petroleum Maatschappij, and Compagnie Francaise Petroles (p. 1563-1651). Reviews the current administration of antitrust and anti-monopoly laws.