By Ernesto Rengifo García (Universidad Externado de Colombia)
This paper seeks to challenge the traditional solution offered against unilateral price fixing by a party, it is the effect of a non-existent contract or avoidable contract by absence of price. The problem, as will be shown, is not actually made by who determines the price (if one party or both), but to clarify the criteria under which to proceed to make that determination. Such criteria should follow the model of behavior from Roman law arbitrium boni viri, that requires a party behavior and judgment characteristics of a righteous man. Having thus proceeded, the contract is binding and the court may intervene in the event that there has been abuse in pricing. So while the old system solution is the voidance, the new solution should be the concept of abuse.
Featured News
FTC Pushes Review of CoStar’s Commercial Real Estate Antitrust Case
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
UK’s CMA Investigates Ardonagh’s Atlanta Group and Markerstudy Merger
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
Greenberg Traurig Grow Financial Regulatory and Compliance Practice
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
Dutch Regulator Fines Uber €10 Million for Privacy Violations
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
DOJ Investigates AI Competition, Eyes Microsoft’s OpenAI Deal: Bloomberg
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – The Rule(s) of Reason
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
Evolving the Rule of Reason for Legacy Business Conduct
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
The Object Identity
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
In Praise of Rules-Based Antitrust
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
The Future of State AG Antitrust Enforcement and Federal-State Cooperation
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI