ACCC alleges resale price maintenance by distributor of Bamix and Magimix products

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court, Adelaide, against Cambur Industries Pty Ltd and its sales and marketing manager, Mr John James (Sean) Caulfield, for alleged resale price maintenance*.

Cambur Industries is the exclusive Australian distributor of Bamix and Magimix kitchen products, including the dual branded Nespresso/Magimix coffee machines. 

The ACCC alleges that Cambur Industries, when dealing with two South Australian-based stockists, engaged in resale price maintenance by:

• inducing or attempting to induce them not to sell and/or advertise Cambur products at prices less than Cambur's recommended retail prices (RRP)
• telling the stockists that it would not continue to supply products unless they agreed not to sell and/or advertise the products at less than Cambur's RRP, and
• using price statements that the stockists would be likely to believe to be the prices below which Cambur products were not to be sold or advertised.

Further, the ACCC alleges that in its dealings with one stockist Cambur engaged in resale price maintenance by:

• offering to enter into an agreement to supply Cambur products, with a term requiring the stockist not to sell and/or advertise Cambur products at prices less than the RRP, and
• withholding supply of Cambur products for the substantial reason that the stockist had sold or advertised the products at prices less than Cambur's RRP.

The ACCC alleges that Mr Caulfield was directly and knowingly concerned in and party to, all of the alleged contraventions by Cambur.

In addition to declarations, injunctions, pecuniary penalties and costs, the ACCC is seeking orders requiring Cambur to establish and implement a corporate trade practices law compliance program, and Mr Caulfield to attend a compliance seminar.

The ACCC is also seeking an order requiring Cambur to inform its authorised stockists of the Federal Court decision.

A directions hearing for the matter is listed for 20 October 2005 in the Federal Court, Adelaide.

*Section 48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 prohibits 'resale price maintenance'. A company engages in resale price maintenance where, among other things, it specifies a price below which its goods should not be sold, tries to stop a reseller from discounting a product, or where it supplies a reseller on disadvantageous terms because the reseller had sold, or was likely to sell, the product below a specified price.