1. a. What potential procompetitive considerations were cited by the court in supporting a rule of reason approach to resale price maintenance?
b. What potential anticompetitive considerations were cited by the court?
2. Could we fairly conclude from the Leegin decision that resale price maintenance agreements are now “per se legal”? Explain.
3. Explain why the court said the seller’s market power is an important consideration in assessing the legality of a resale price-maintenance agreement.
Petitioner, Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. (Leegin), designs, manufactures, and distributes leather goods and accessories. In 1991, Leegin began to sell belts under the brand name “Brighton.” The Brighton brand has now expanded into a variety of women’s fashion accessories. It is sold across the United States in over 5,000 retail establishments, for the most part independent, small boutiques and specialty stores. . . . Leegin asserts that, at least for its products, small retailers treat customers better, provide customers more services, and make their shopping experience more satisfactory than do larger, often impersonal retailers.