Trade Commission Looks At Wire-Mattress Agreement

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28958, 28 July 1959, Page 14

Trade Commission Looks At Wire-Mattress Agreement

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON. July 27 The suggestion of the then Minister of Industries and Com merce in an address in 1951 to the Associated Chambers of Commerce that the question of prices could, in some cases, be dealt with on a trade-group basis activated ar. agreement in 1953 among wire-mattress manufacturers in the Wellington province to consult on factory prices of wire-wove mattresses. Mr H Taylor, counsel for the group, told the Trade Practices and Prices Commission today. The commission, which reserved its decision, was inquiring into an agreement on prices between members of the wire mattress manufacturers’ trade group of the Wellington Manufacturers' Association in respect of wire mattresses. The manufacturers named are Duncan's Furniture Manufacturing Company, Ltd., Hastings. B L. Hart and Company, Ltd.. Petone, and J. W. Wallace. Ltd . Wellington.

Mr Taylor said that originally

six or seven manufacturers were involved in the agreement, but by March or April of this year the group was down to three in number. At the beginning of May, J. W. Wallace, Ltd., had withdrawn, and was charging a different price. B. L. Hart and Company. Ltd., ceased the manufacture of wire mattresses about the middle of March.

•“That leaves only one person, and one person can’t main tain an agreement.’’ said Mi Taylor. It might appear significant that the disintegration of the agreement occurred about the time ot the inquiry by the Commissioner of Trade Practices and Prices (Mr H. L. Wise). But he believed that the members of the group were unaware of the inquiry. The commissioner’s report was dated May 6, and it was conveyed to the group on May 26.

Mr Taylor submitted that in any case the group had done no wrong—there was no evidence that the trade practice had been contrary to the public interest. The commission had ample powers to proceed again if there was a revival or renewal of the agreement. 1

“It would be a gracious act on the part of the commission if the matter were not pursued any further,’’ he said. Order Sought

Mr G. S. Orr, counsel assisting the commission, submitted that the onus was on the parties to the agreement to justify the practice. He submitted that the commission should make an order forbidding the parties to the present agreement to revive sucn agreement, enter into a substantially similar agreement, or enter into any other agreement or arrangement by which they in concert, agree to observe common prices. As the agreement was no longer operating, there seemed less reason for an ordei to be made for its discontinuance.