The Theory About The Legal Regulating Of The Vertical Price Monopoly Agreement In Our Country

Compared with horizontal monopoly agreements, vertical price monopoly agreement’s impact on market competition is more complex, and therefore the regulation of vertical price-fixing agreement is more uncertain and controversial. Rue bang v Johnson & Johnson is the first case of vertical price monopoly agreement by the court in China, it caused wide attention from the date of filing. By analyzing this case we can see there are three controversial aspects in the cognizance of vertical price monopoly agreement: should eliminate or restrict competition is the longitudinal components of price monopoly agreements, the cognizance of eliminate or restrict competition, and how to distribute the burden of proof of eliminate or restrict competition condition, the second instance court must eliminate or restrict competition is the components of the vertical price monopoly agreements, and it adopt reasonable principle as the recognized principles of vertical price monopoly agreement, it adopt "who advocates, who proof" as the allocation principles of burden of proof. About these problems, I think that eliminate or restrict competition is the components of the vertical price monopoly agreement, but resale price maintenance shall apply to the exception principle of exemption, and the burden of proof of resale price maintenance shall apply to the allocation of onus proof conversion method.Besides the introduction and conclusion, there are five parts in this article:The first part is "the introduction of the case and problem raised”. In this section,by Analyzing simple generalization of Rue bang v. Johnson, we can Come to the conclusion that there are three controversial aspects in the cognizance of vertical price monopoly agreement: should eliminate or restrict competition is the longitudinal components of price monopoly agreements, the cognizance of eliminate or restrict competition, and how to distribute the burden of proof of eliminate or restrict competition condition.The second part is "should eliminate or restrict competition is the longitudinal components of price monopoly agreements", This part firstly clear for the differences that the problems in the theory and practice, Then analysis the court’s decision and sums up the court’s view of the problem: eliminate or restrict competition is the longitudinal components of price monopoly agreements, Finally statement the view of this paper: Agree with the court’s decision but to eliminate or restrict competition should consider double standards of effect and purposeThe third part is "the cognizance of eliminate or restrict competition", This part firstly clear the problems in theory and practice,that is the analysis of "itself illegal" or "reasonable principle", And then discusses the court’s attitude toward the problem : vertical price monopoly agreement should adopt the principle of "substantial effect measure", Finally from three aspects to analyze the view of this paper: resale price maintenance shall apply to Principle prohibits exception exemption principle.The fourth part is " how to distribute the burden of proof of eliminate or restrict competition condition,” his part firstly analyzes the present situation that the distribution of burden of proof is not clear, Then analysis the court’s decision: "Who advocates, who proof", In other words, The plaintiff undertake the burden of proof. Finally statement the view of this paper: apply the allocation of onus proof conversion method.The fifth part is "Suggestions for the perfection of vertical price monopoly agreement regulation". In this part, on the basis of summing up the above, I put forward suggestions and improvement of the regulation of vertical price monopoly agreement, from five aspects that are the recognized principles of vertical price monopoly agreement, related law, immunity system, standard of cognizance and distribution of burden of proof.The conclusion part is the simple summary to full text, Simple reiterated the point of view of the court and the paper for the three problems that exist in the cognizance of vertical price monopoly agreement.