TRADERS' DIFFICULTIES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20619, 18 July 1930, Page 8

TRADERS' DIFFICULTIES.

GROWTH OF COMPETITION. OBJECTIONS TO LEGISLATION. "In the interests of the public it would teem that the distributing trade, in spile of temporary hardship, should he allowed to fight its own battles with respect to price-cut t ing," said Mr. J 0. Shearer in an address on "Unfair Competition" at a meeting of the Auckland branch of the licoriomie Society. Referring to the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910, Mr. Shearer said that this was aimed V to prevent combinations in the Selling of \ food and also to nullify concerted efforts ito raise prices. This legislation was confirmed by the Cost of Living Act, 1915, which established a Hoard of Jrade, and a subsequent Act in 1919 widened the powers of the board. f lhe powers of the board were vested in the .Minister of Industries and Commerce by an amending Act in 1923. * "Since then competition in the form of price-cutting and 'cash-and-carry' and 'self-serve' methods has increased," said Mr. Shearer." "Undoubtedly the distributing trade has become greatly disturbed and the desirability of legislation to enable manufacturers to increase prices has been stressed. Presumably that legislation would make it an offence for any ret.iiier or wholesaler to sell the article below the fixed. If it is to follow the American plan, sales at which prices might be reduced would be restricted to a certain number each \ear. ' - The objection to this type of legislation was that it deprived the public to some extent of the benefit of competition, Mr. Shearer said. It would seem desirable that the manufacturer, if lie wished, should be allowed to refuse to deal with the retailer "cutting" on his branded article. It was not clear whether that could be prevented under the Commercial Trusts Act, which had not received suflicicnt judicial interpretation. "One should bo very cautious in advocating any repeal of the. Act," said Mr. Shearer. , '"As an anti monopoly measure the Act ls-an »••.• < I|e.ll one. One cannot, icadilv advocate a policy which would validate a cnmbiii i'ein and a possible monopoly. It would piobably be. better to let mailers right I hem: 'lves, but if legislation wore passed inter■iVic.nce should lio reduced to a minimum."