The Analysis Of The Anti-monopoly Law About Minimum Resale Price Maintenance Agreements

August 2013, the Shanghai higher people’s Court of Beijing Rui Bang company sued Shanghai Johnson company vertical agreements the Court of final appeal judgement in China. This case is the anti-monopoly law in China since the implementation of China’s first vertical agreements case before the Court. Therefore, the wide public concern, first and second instance which lasted for about three years, court hearing into the case was more cautious. However, the judgment caused a lot of controversy in the case, one of the most critical dispute is China’s anti-monopoly law on minimum resale price maintenance agreements nature determines is reasonable principles there is some presumption of illegal defense? says the dispute is about how to understand the anti-monopoly law of 14 th and 15 th issue. Although in the case of first and second instance verdict opposite, but in the case of first instance and the Court of second instance is the reasonable nature of the principles identified the minimum resale price maintenance agreements. Author of this objection, arguing that China’s anti-monopoly law contradicts the presumption of illegal determination of nature of the minimum resale price maintenance agreements, saying it would contradict the presumption of illegal agreement the legislative intent of the Antimonopoly Act, in accordance with the provisions of the antitrust laws. Therefore, based on China’s anti-monopoly law legal principles which determine the minimum resale price maintenance agreements the legal disputes over the nature at the core, are discussed. This paper is divided into four parts:Part I: summary of the case. This part of rui bang company and Johnson Shanghai company, Johnson China company is sorting out the merits of the case of vertical agreements, which leads in the case at issue, namely China’s anti-monopoly law by which legal principles to determine nature of minimum resale price maintenance agreements?Part II: the controversial legal analysis. This section contains three questions, one is the legal regulation on minimum resale price maintenance agreements about its significance; the second is the determination of the minimum resale price maintenance agreements nature of legal principles; third, the nature of the case to determine the minimum resale price maintenance agreements legal judgment. First, the author analyzes the negative effects of minimum resale price maintenance agreements, as well as the positive effect, that minimum resale price maintenance agreements are not as visible as horizontal fixed-price anticompetitive, it could have a positive effect on competition, so the principles of legal regulation of minimum resale price maintenance agreements is not consistent. Then, determine the nature of the legal minimum resale price maintenance agreements the principles elaborated, the author describes properties determine the minimum resale price maintenance agreements were the three legal principles, which are the principle of per se illegality principle, reasonable, presumption of law defence. Finally, the author to determine the minimum resale price maintenance agreements in this case nature of legal judgments. In on the problem of described in the, author first on domestic judge maintained minimum turned sale price agreement nature applies of legal principles differences be introduced, that is used reasonable principles also is can defence of illegal presumption judge maintained minimum turned sale price agreement nature? author detailed lists both views by according to of reason, author think used can defence of illegal presumption judge maintained minimum turned sale price agreement nature meet China anti-monopoly method of provides, fit legislation intent. Based on this conclusion, combined with the judgment of first instance and the second instance in this case reason to comment on the principles of law applicable to the present case.Part III: enlightenment based on what time of the case. The part from the unification of law enforcement and judicial standards, improve immunity from legal liability provisions, improving three aspects put forward relevant suggestions. Author discusses law enforcement and judicial judge standard phase unified Shi, pointed out that current anti-monopoly method practice faced most urgent of problem is unified law enforcement and judicial judge standard, author think should perfect legal provides clear to can defence of illegal presumption understanding anti-monopoly method 14 th article and 15 th article, elimination related controversy, unified both finds standard, while author pointed out that China anti-monopoly method practice needs solution anti-monopoly law enforcement and anti-monopoly civil how convergence of problem, and for proposed has related recommends. When the author provide exemptions, said case, the exemption procedure, waiver of exemption criteria should be improved. Author provide that should perfect legal duties, that should improve the civil liability provisions, perfecting the system of administrative liability provisions, establishing criminal liability.Part IV: this is a summary about the point of the article.