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
FTC Sues to Block Tempur Sealy’s $4.3 Billion Acquisition of Mattress Firm
Oct 24, 2024 by
CPI
Mexican Watchdog Proposes Fintech Reforms to Boost Financial Inclusion
Oct 24, 2024 by
CPI
AMA and ISMS File Antitrust Lawsuit Against MultiPlan Over Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme
Oct 24, 2024 by
CPI
Biden Administration Announces New AI Strategy to Boost National Security
Oct 24, 2024 by
CPI
Google Agrees to Provide AI-Related Documents in Monopoly Case
Oct 24, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Chevron
Oct 24, 2024 by
CPI
A Quartet of Decisions That Cripple Agencies
Oct 24, 2024 by
Richard J. Pierce
Goodbye, Chevron: Rediscovering the Virtues of an Independent Judiciary
Oct 24, 2024 by
Alexander Volokh
A New Era of Deference: From Chevron to Loper Bright
Oct 24, 2024 by
Daniel E. Walters
Loper Bright and Antitrust: Limited Impact on Enforcement, but a Clear Constraint on FTC Rulemaking
Oct 24, 2024 by
David Kully, Lynn Calkins & Kenneth Racowski