Welcome Guest
Catamaran Sailing at TheBeachcats.com Logo
Notifications
Clear all

Hobie Cat Australia v's ACCC

8 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
2,554 Views
Marcus F16
(@artdomain305)
Posts: 305
Member
Topic starter
 
[#22421]

Hmmmm......

I pay my share of $$$ to the ACCC & dont necessarily support Hobie, but I sometimes wonder about their agenda. <img src=

alt=

/>

Copied from Sailing Anarchy

Hobie Cat Australasia Pty Ltd penalised $168,000 for resale price maintenance

The Federal Court of Australia has imposed a penalty of $168,000 on Hobie Cat Australasia Pty Ltd, a kayak and sailboat supplier, for engaging in resale price maintenance in contravention of section 48* of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission instituted proceedings against Hobie in September 2007, alleging Hobie had engaged in resale price maintenance by including in its dealership agreements, terms which prohibited dealers from selling or advertising Hobie products below the recommended retail prices, or at prices no less than 10 per cent below the recommended retail prices.

After admissions by Hobie that it engaged in the conduct alleged, the ACCC and Hobie submitted agreed orders, including a proposed penalty figure, for consideration by the court.

Justice Finn imposed the penalty submitted and made consent orders, including:

declarations that Hobie engaged in resale price maintenance conduct in contravention of section 48 of the Trade Practices Act
injunctions restraining the same contravening conduct in future
Hobie establish a trade practices compliance program, and maintain that program for a period of three years
Hobie write to all of its dealers advising them that it had engaged in illegal conduct and that it cannot specify to retailers a minimum price below which goods are not to be sold, and
Hobie pay the ACCC's costs.
Justice Finn noted that while Hobie's conduct was

intentional and purposive

it

involved no knowing (or deliberate) contravention of the Act.

He also noted that the penalty was substantial and significant for a company of Hobie's size and was proportionate to the seriousness of its contraventions.

ACCC Chairman, Mr Graeme Samuel, said:

The outcome of this matter should drive home to businesses of all sizes that every care must be taken to ensure they are aware of their obligations under the Trade Practices Act. It also serves as a warning that the ACCC will vigorously pursue allegations of resale price maintenance in any industry to ensure there is fair play in the market place and lower prices for consumers.


 
Posted : April 15, 2008 6:41 pm
(@stewart)
Posts: 927
Chief Registered
 

Ok Im confused about the relevance and disquiet.

Just means Hobie dealers can now compete against each other. This bad why??? Not that I really care how much a H16 sells for.

Or are you suggesting that Hobie has finally worked out how to make an affordable F16 built to weight? <img src=

alt=

/>


 
Posted : April 15, 2008 8:41 pm
ncik
 ncik
(@nickb)
Posts: 935
Master Chief Registered
 

Doesn't the ACCC just respond to alleged breaches from interested parties? Someone who doesn't like Hobies practises must've dropped them in it.

I don't think it is a bad thing, just interesting. Maybe Hobie resellers can now put pressure on the manufacturer to drop the price.

It would truly be interesting if they'd been stung for being monopolistic! Doesn't it go hand-in-hand with single manufacturer one design(SMOD) class builders? Maybe that is to come from the ACCC. Does any other sport in the world require the use of equipment from only one manufacturer? I can't think of any right now?


 
Posted : April 15, 2008 10:04 pm
Marcus F16
(@artdomain305)
Posts: 305
Member
Topic starter
 

Stewart - I guess that now means the spare parts might be a little more realistic.? Then again I guess HCA could bump their wholesale price up & therefore all the dealers will have an absolute minimum $$$ value to on sell to the customer.
Nick - I think they call it collusion when the

rivals

get together.!
Hopefully HCA's $$$ can go to investigating the fuel companies & price fixing.!!!?? <img src=

alt=

/>


 
Posted : April 15, 2008 10:46 pm
(@Anonymous 37845)
Posts: 514
 

But was this

price maintenance

policy primarily on the cat or kayak side, or across the business?

Both different lines and I would have thought different retailing networks and could have had different agreements with each, but it could have been a company wide policy.


 
Posted : April 16, 2008 1:45 am
(@stewart)
Posts: 927
Chief Registered
 

What I suspect Hobie was doing was to maintain the

name brand

by maintaining the retail price and maintain dealers profit lines. *shrugs*not sure which divisions were involved.

Some executives should actually read and understand the laws they operate under..


 
Posted : April 16, 2008 11:58 am
(@Anonymous 39109)
Posts: 191
 

this was caused by a shop that is no longer a dealer and conflicted personality's.


 
Posted : April 16, 2008 10:41 pm
Marcus F16
(@artdomain305)
Posts: 305
Member
Topic starter
 

I meant to state I did not support the ACCC's agenda.!! <img src=

alt=

/>


 
Posted : April 17, 2008 12:43 am
Secret Link