By Ernesto Rengifo García (Universidad Externado de Colombia)
This paper seeks to challenge the traditional solution offered against unilateral price fixing by a party, it is the effect of a non-existent contract or avoidable contract by absence of price. The problem, as will be shown, is not actually made by who determines the price (if one party or both), but to clarify the criteria under which to proceed to make that determination. Such criteria should follow the model of behavior from Roman law arbitrium boni viri, that requires a party behavior and judgment characteristics of a righteous man. Having thus proceeded, the contract is binding and the court may intervene in the event that there has been abuse in pricing. So while the old system solution is the voidance, the new solution should be the concept of abuse.
Featured News
New York AG Wins Antitrust Battle Against Intermountain Management Over Ski Market Competition
Mar 10, 2025 by
CPI
Rocket Cos. to Acquire Redfin in $1.75 Billion All-Stock Deal
Mar 10, 2025 by
CPI
EU Conducts Dawn Raids on Non-Alcoholic Drink Giants Over Competition Concern
Mar 10, 2025 by
CPI
NY Attorney General Takes Legal Action Against Allstate for Cybersecurity Failures
Mar 10, 2025 by
CPI
Britain’s Antitrust Regulator Sets Clearer Path for Big Tech Oversight
Mar 10, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Self-Preferencing
Feb 26, 2025 by
CPI
Platform Self-Preferencing: Focusing the Policy Debate
Feb 26, 2025 by
Michael Katz
Weaponized Opacity: Self-Preferencing in Digital Audience Measurement
Feb 26, 2025 by
Thomas Hoppner & Philipp Westerhoff
Self-Preferencing: An Economic Literature-Based Assessment Advocating a Case-By-Case Approach and Compliance Requirements
Feb 26, 2025 by
Patrice Bougette & Frederic Marty
Self-Preferencing in Adjacent Markets
Feb 26, 2025 by
Muxin Li