Two wholesalers in bicycle price-fixing charges get R4m administrative fines each

[Mongoose!]

Wonder when Shimano "online offshore competition" will be eliminated as Sram did tried?

[Jewbacca]

There are also some other interesting names on that list.  Some of them  seen to be redeemers of the bicycling industry.

What would they all be doing at the meeting..............

 

Why do we still believe a leopard will change its spots?

I agree... But it is amazing how easy it is to just 'slip in' to the pricing systems and mark ups.

 

We always tried to be fair, often selling direct orders (not pre bought stock) at cost for builds etc... but the Omnico/Supplier 1.64 (64%) mark up is pretty universal.

 

I think it may even be more now....

[Mongoose!]

joh ! 

 

64%?

[Dicky DQ]

Blah blah fish paste.

 

People thinking that getting bust for price fixing would result in a price drop are delusional. The fact is the only thing they are NOT allowed to do is agree on pricing. This does not mean that they have to drop their pricing, they could even increase it if they wanted and as long as the stupid consumer continues to pay no one else is going to drop their prices.

 

So if you think about it we the consumer are allowing them to continue to "collude" in as far as there is no incentive to drop prices if you keep selling at the current price.

 

As a side note, price fixing on non essential goods means nothing as soon as consumers vote with their wallets it all changes. 

[Mongoose!]

true

[RocknRolla]

Is that why we get given so much free lube and shammy cream?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shawnvan]

Competition Appeal Court's judgment attached.  Makes for some interesting reading if you're legally inclined...

 

Judgment CAC.pdf

[Mongoose!]

wish I was legally inclined

[Sepia]

I read the court document as linked to this thread and cannot understand why that bloke at Cycle Lab was never implicated?

He seemed to be involved with other price fixing efforts in the past?

 

Just asking.

[Mongoose!]

I read the court document as linked to this thread and cannot understand why that bloke at Cycle Lab was never implicated?

He seemed to be involved with other price fixing efforts in the past?

 

Just asking.

 

quit interesting question yes

[Phatman]

Surely the brands who are distributed by these wholesalers would want to distance themselves from this?

It likely means nothing to them, all that matters is that their product continues to get marketed and distributed. Imagine Tiger Brands deciding to stop supplying the Big 4 if/when they get bust for price fixing. They'll probably just laugh it off over a round of Bohemian Pilsners from "that" brewery.

[Jooste]

Dodgy deals follow the skelms everywhere they go

[Tumbleweed]

Truth is, though, is that the Comp Comm's case in this had been flimsy from the start.

[JXV]

Competition Appeal Court's judgment attached. Makes for some interesting reading if you're legally inclined...

 

Judgment CAC.pdf

Interesting. The way they determine penalty and the principle that silent attendance at a meeting constitutes acceptance of any agreement reached unless one makes it publicly clear that you don't agree. Also the principle that remaining silent means one is party to the financial harm caused to customers and also that it conceals the anti competitive behaviour, delaying its discovery and correction. There is also an onus to disclose such behaviour to authorities once you become aware of it.

 

Coolheat gets hit with R4.25m because they failed to provide data that would have indicated a lower affected turnover ( they only apparently increased RRP on 94 out of 4000 stock items but failed to isolate the value thereof and were thus fined using their total turnover as a basis). Seems a bit harsh and I bet they are not overly happy with their legal team's advice.....the 6 step principle for determining the penalty was available from recent case law and could have been applied to the appeal even though it probably wasn't available when the original finding was made by the tribunal.

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Edited December 22, 2016 by JXV

[V12man]

Interesting. The way they determine penalty and the principle that silent attendance at a meeting constitutes acceptance of any agreement reached unless one makes it publicly clear that you don't agree. Also the principle that remaining silent means one is party to the financial harm caused to customers and also that it conceals the anti competitive behaviour, delaying its discovery and correction. There is also an onus to disclose such behaviour to authorities once you become aware of it.

 

Coolheat gets hit with R4.25m because they failed to provide data that would have indicated a lower affected turnover ( they only apparently increased RRP on 94 out of 4000 stock items but failed to isolate the value thereof and were thus fined using their total turnover as a basis). Seems a bit harsh and I bet they are not overly happy with their legal team's advice.....the 6 step principle for determining the penalty was available from recent case law and could have been applied to the appeal even though it probably wasn't available when the original finding was made by the tribunal.

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Concealing a crime is of itself a crime....

 

So attending a meeting and remaining silent means concealment and therefore guilty.... of something anyway....

 

But the consumer will pay the fine in the end... the local distributors rip the ring out of pricing... In a big way... local prices are sometimes 60% or more higher than international prices... including shipping... kind of hard to explain that... my eagle xo1 upgrade cost me r9930.... local price over 15k when you add a chainring - even on special....

[Kalahari Vegmot]

It costs me about half to service my bike if I order from Wiggle, rather than my LBS.

And the LBS doesn't stock anything Campag...