Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Differing Views On Repayments By Manufacturers To Dealers For Expenses Required By The Manufacturers As Price Readjustments Under I.R.C. Section 6416(B)(1)--General Motors Corp. V. United States; Waterman-Bic Pen Corp. V. United States, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 exacts a manufacturer's excise tax based on sales price; if the sales price is readjusted by means of a "bona fide discount, rebate or allowance," the manufacturer is entitled to a tax credit under section 6416(b) (1). In two recent cases, General Motors Corp. v. United States, and Waterman-Bic Pen Corp. v. United States, manufacturers have sought tax credits, claiming that their reimbursements to dealers for expenses which the manufacturers had required the dealers to incur subsequent to the time of sale constituted price readjustments. The Court of Claims in General Motors …
The Judicial Treatment Of The Automobile Dealer Franchise Act, J. Patrick Martin
The Judicial Treatment Of The Automobile Dealer Franchise Act, J. Patrick Martin
Michigan Law Review
The representatives of the auto industry initially viewed the act with a jaundiced eye and warned that this special class legislation6 would radically change the existing case law by allowing the dealer to win where formerly he would have lost. However, the court decisions under the act have not borne out such dire predictions. This discussion will examine what has, in fact, been the judicial interpretation and treatment of the act.
Federal Antitrust Law-Sherman Act-Resale Restrictions In Agreements Between Manufacturer And Distributors, S. Anthony Benton
Federal Antitrust Law-Sherman Act-Resale Restrictions In Agreements Between Manufacturer And Distributors, S. Anthony Benton
Michigan Law Review
Defendant, a manufacturer of heavy trucks, entered into agreements with its wholesale distributors and retail dealers whereby the distributors and dealers agreed to resell defendant's trucks at prices fixed by defendant. They also agreed to restrict their sales to customers located within the territories designated by defendant and to allow defendant to deal directly with all government accounts. The Justice Department, charging violation of sections I and 3 of the Sherman Act, brought a civil suit to enjoin defendant from continuing or renewing any of the aforementioned arrangements. On plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, held, motion granted. Vertical agreements …
Regulation Of Business - Refusals To Deal - Use To Effectuate Resale Price Maintenance, Raymond J. Dittrich, Jr. S.Ed.
Regulation Of Business - Refusals To Deal - Use To Effectuate Resale Price Maintenance, Raymond J. Dittrich, Jr. S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
This comment will examine the legal questions arising from a manufacturer's exercise of his right to maintain resale prices by refusing to deal with price cutters in an attempt to determine whether this exists only as an abstract right, or whether it can be translated into legally effective business practices.
Negligence - Duty Of Care - Manufacturer's Duty To Warn Of Obvious Dangers, George R. Haydon Jr.
Negligence - Duty Of Care - Manufacturer's Duty To Warn Of Obvious Dangers, George R. Haydon Jr.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff purchased a "Lithe-Line" exerciser, a rubber rope forty inches long with a loop on each end, manufactured by defendant Helena Rubenstein, Inc. With the exerciser plaintiff received a leaflet of instructions stating that "anybody" could reduce with it, and containing sketches and descriptions of eight exercises. While plaintiff was lying on the floor with the rope under her feet doing one of the exercises, the rope slipped off her feet and snapped back, hitting her in the eye and causing partial loss of vision. She sued the manufacturer for negligence, alleging that the exerciser was inherently dangerous when used …
Corporations--Merger--Statutory Meaning Of "Same Or Similar Purposes", Ray A. Mcintyre
Corporations--Merger--Statutory Meaning Of "Same Or Similar Purposes", Ray A. Mcintyre
Michigan Law Review
A merger agreement was drawn up and approved by the necessary statutory majority of shareholders for the merging of a corporation engaged in making and selling razor blades into one which was making and selling pens and pencils; but the minority stockholders of the razor blade company sought a preliminary injunction against the merger on the grounds that it was prohibited by the statute which confines the authority to merge to those corporations which are organized ". . . for the purpose of carrying on any kind of business of the same or similar nature . . . . " …