JUSTICE TO TRADERS

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 283, 27 August 1935, Page 2

JUSTICE TO TRADERS

Checking Price-cutting

HELP BY GOVERNMENT “Any fear which may exist as to the operations of any trusts or combines in New Zealand, if the Commercial Trusts Act is in any way interfered with, is entirely misplaced so far as, the amending Bill introduced by the Government last session is concerned,’’ says a statement by the Associated Chambers of Commerce of New Zealand.

"For that matter, the complete freedom which is enjoyed by traders in England, where the law recoguises the right of a man to trade .as be pleases, aud to combine iu defence of, or in support of trade interests, has brought no dire results iu its train from the standpoint of the public welfare, Committee Impressed. “Ample proof of this is found in the report of the Restraint of Trade Committee, which was set up In England in 1930 by th© Lord Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade ‘to consider present trade practices which result in withholding from particular

retail traders supplies of goods in which they wish to deal, or which prevent the sale of such supplies except upon conditions imposed by the suppliers, and to report whether in their opinion all or any of such practices are detrimental to the public interest. . .’ “The committee, after a full investigation, presented, inter alia, the following finding:—‘We have been been impressed by the volume and force of the testimony as to the harmful effects of price-cutting upon the manufacturers and distributors of advertised branded goods, and ultimately, as was contended, upon the public. ... Shopkeepers In the neighbourhood of price-cutters cease to stock the goods affected, or at any rate cease to push thin, with the result that the manufacturer finds his sales falling off. In the end the price-cutters themselves may cease to stock the goods, finding that they are no longer effective as a decoy. It is natural that the manufacturer who owns the brand and bears the expense of national advertising should claim in these circumstances to protect the final conditions of sale of the goods, since the prosperity of his trade is at stake. . . . Our general conclusion regarding the broad principle of maintained resale prices for branded goods is that no sufficient case has been made out for interfering with the right of the manufacturer to sell his goods upon conditions which permit him to name the terms on which such goods shall be resold. .. .We are quite unable to say that the interest of the public would be better served by an alteration of the law which would prevent the fixing of prices of branded goods.’ “A Cautious Loosening,” “This report Is sufficient answer to all the colourful propaganda which price-cutting interests in New Zealand periodically put out, regarding the starving women and children who would be victimised if there were any interference with the law of the Dominion prohibiting price-fixing. The fact is actually that the Commercial Trusts Act has injuriously affected just those classes of the people that price-cutting interests in their propaganda claim would be victimised if the Act were amended. . . . The Act in its present form hag tended and still is tending to retard economic recovery. It has, iu fact, been a direct contributory factor in increasing the number of our unemployed, because through the actions of the price-cutters many traders have been forced out of business, some have been fored into bankruptcy, and others who are still struggling along are doing so with diminished staffs. No better example can be given than that of the tobacconists, who until the elimination of the item of tobacco from the Schedule to the Commercial Trusts Act by the Finance Act No. 2, 1933, were subject to just such conditions. “The fact is, however, that the Bill proposed by the New Zealand Government does not seek to give the same rights to manufacturers and distributors in New Zealand as exist in England. All it seeks to do is to cautiously loosen the present Act to the extent of allowing manufacturers and distributors to control resale prices, provided always they can prove that their action is not opposed to the public interest and welfare. In other words, the only concession made is a willingness to hear the other side, at the same time as the Government keeps just as much legislative control of the position as ever it did, “Such a just amendment to the law will hurt nobody— except probably the price-cutter. If he is so convinced that price-cutting is in the general Interest, then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by forcing the manufacturers and distributors to prove their contrary argument in a court of law—-as they would be required to do under the amending Bill of the Government. For the price-cut-ter to protest too much at this juncture should be a strong argument that his case is weak.

“It is in the general public Interest that the Government’s Bill, which was listed with other matters that were not finalised at the last session of Parliament, should be again introduced to the House when members assemble."