Send comments

Delay retirement Why not work?
The real estate business and stalls thing?
(A) the basic facts plaintiff Rui state companies as defendants Johnson & Johnson medical sutures, staplers and other medical products distributor, distribution partnership with Johnson & Johnson for 15 years. January 2008, Johnson signed with Rui state "distribution contract" and accessories, agreed Rui state company may not sell below the price specified in Johnson & Johnson products. March 2008, Johnson & Johnson Medical sallys suture sales tender Rui state company held at Peking University People's Hospital to the lowest price bid. July 2008, Johnson & Johnson to sharply cut prices by state companies sallys secretly canceled sharp Pradesh distribution rights in Fu Wai Hospital, orthopedic hospitals. After August 15, 2008, Johnson & Johnson companies no longer accept Rui state medical suture product orders, in September 2008 stopped completely suture products, delivery stapling products. In 2009, Johnson & Johnson is no longer with the sharp sell state companies to renew the contract. The plaintiff in the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court, the defendant advocated limiting distribution contract stipulated minimum resale price terms, constitute antitrust laws prohibited vertical monopoly sallys agreements, the defendants petitioned the court to order compensation for the implementation of the monopoly agreement Plaintiff ALTs conduct "penalties" and the economic losses caused sallys to the plaintiff 14,399,300 yuan. (B) The referee Shanghai Higher People's Court upheld the result that the present case the relevant product market is the market for medical sutures in mainland China, the market competition is not sufficient, in this market, Johnson & Johnson has a strong market forces, the case involved a minimum limit resale price agreements sallys relevant sallys market in this case had excluded the effect of restricting competition, while there is no obvious effect sufficient to promote competition, shall be deemed constitute a monopoly agreement. Distribution qualification cancel some hospitals to stop acts of suture products supplier Johnson & Johnson to sharply taken by state companies belonging sallys to the antitrust laws prohibit monopolistic behavior, and Johnson & Johnson should compensate these monopolistic behavior due to sharp state companies in 2008 suture products properly loss of profits. Rui state compensation pursuant to the judgment of Johnson & Johnson company 530,000 yuan of economic losses. sallys (C) the significance of the case is the first case of a typical vertical monopoly agreement disputes, but also the country's first final judgment in favor of the plaintiff monopoly disputes, in our landmark sallys antitrust trial development. The case involves a series of major issues limiting minimum resale price action sallys antitrust analysis, the case was upheld restrictions on minimum resale price behavior evaluation principles of law, the burden of proof distribution, analysis and evaluation factors and other issues to explore and try its analysis and conclusions have important significance for promoting China's antitrust cases and antitrust trial implementation. Judgment in that case, and fully reflects sallys the people's court to stop the law has played sallys a monopolistic behavior, to protect and promote the functional role of fair market competition.

www.chyyc.com
Send comments