In House? Oh, blame it on the system. Oh, people arent responsbile, its the system. Bull-shit - people do, period. https://youtube/watch?v=eDdI7GhZSQA Bratton - thats one: Due to a big void in public, student and client comprehension of the simple price economic tools that govern how to identify our chronic up-charge or “Price-Up” problem, this rule based summary provides streamlined clarity. Short examples are attached. Most have received some notice about a public overcharge class case, whether spun as price fixing, breach of contract, securities fraud or whatever. The common rule used to arrive at any “overcharge number” is elementary: you simply ask for and get the “overhead costs, markup and basic pricing” papers. It’s a basic contract disclosure. The American Bar Association authored this instruction on this easy subject: The “Cost Estimate” Papers The “but-for” price is identified by conducting a “cost estimate” of the “competitive price,” which numbers are “subtracted from the actual prices” to determine the illegal up-charge or damages. It is axiomatic that this process requires a “cost analysis.” Indeed, common law specifically requires a review of the cost papers to determine what the price would have been but for the illegal markup or conspiracy.” The measure of overcharge damages … in price fixing cases is the up-charge multiplied by the relevant purchase quantity. Simply put, the up-charge depends on the difference between the actual price paid and the competitive price, or the price that would have been charged absent the alleged illegal agreement. The Up-Charge Numbers It is axiomatic that this process requires a “cost analysis.” It is axiomatic, as the American Bar correctly notes, because “the process” requires “measuring costs” in order to comply with the sole, applicable to all things sold, law of price: It All Fuses Back to Correct Pricing Correct Pricing, “Add up your unit costs, divide by the number of units you hope to sell and set one price accordingly.” The “independent cost study” is not just part of a reasonable endeavor to estimate a fair compensation, it determines the presumed validity or invalidity of the price attempted to be charged. Prices charged or attempted are not valid unless it would have been impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual price … and the seller had made a reasonable cost study endeavor to estimate a fair average compensation …. Absent either of these elements, the price provision in the customer agreement…is void …. Declared Illegal - Void ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Proving Antitrust Damages: Legal and Economic Issues, at page 215 (2nd Ed. 2010). ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Proving Antitrust Damages: Legal and Economic Issues, at page 214 (2nd Ed. 2010). ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Proving Antitrust Damages: Legal and Economic Issues, at page 202 (2nd Ed. 2010). ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Proving Antitrust Damages: Legal and Economic Issues, at page 215 (2nd Ed. 2010). Competitive Strategy, at page 242 (Michael E. Porter Free Press 1980). Garrett v. Coast & Southern Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 731, 738-739. Garrett v. Coast & Southern Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 731, 738-739. Garrett v. Coast & Southern Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 731, 738-739.
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 02:35:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015