Maintaining the resale price (RPM) or, occasionally, maintaining the retail price is the practice by which a producer and its distributors agree that distributors sell the manufacturer`s product at specified prices (maintenance of the resale price), below or above a price floor (price system imposed) or under or under a price cap (maximum maintenance of the resale price). If a reseller refuses to keep prices open or hidden (see grey market), the manufacturer can cease operations with them.  “Place in Cart to See Price” – the message on merchant sites is never more than a few clicks away. This is an additional step in the process, but you are usually rewarded with a considerable discount. Of course, many products are never updated. You never see a great price for a real Rolex, for example, no matter where you look. Why not? Some products are almost never sold below certain price levels because the resale price policy prevents producers from doing so. So, unfortunately, you can`t buy Rolex on Amazon at a significant discount. Other producers limit the price at which their products are advertised, so that the selling price is not taken into account.
Retailers comply with these minimum selling prices advertised by their suppliers and their minimum advertising guidelines (MRP or POP) because they may be cut off if they do not. Compliance issues arise when the guidelines do not clearly present manufacturers` expectations or when lines of communication between manufacturers and distributors open up through the guidelines. In Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd/Selfridge – Co Ltd  AC 847, an English contractual law, the tyre manufacturer Dunlop had signed an agreement with a distributor to pay USD 5 per tire for damage liquidated if the product was sold below the list price (except to motorized dealers). The House of Lords found that Dunlop could not enforce the agreement. However, this has nothing to do with the legality of the maintenance clauses of the resale price, which was not a matter at the time. The decision was based on the doctrine of contractual practice, as retailer Selfridge Dunlops had purchased products from an intermediary and had no contractual relationship with Dunlop. In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd/New Garage – Motor Co Ltd  AC 79, the House of Lords upheld the enforceable force of the auction price maintenance clause requirement to pay $5 in damages per item sold below the list price, since it was not a punitive clause (which would not be applicable), but a valid and enforceable liquidation clause. The rules on cartels and abuse of dominance are designed to maintain and promote competition between companies. To this end, certain “horizontal” agreements, such as agreements between competitors for the compensation of uniform prices or the limitation of the production they produce, are defined as illegal. If agreements are in themselves illegal, the courts will not take into account facts that may justify the agreement — instead, it is established that the accused broke the law after the evidence of the agreement and is held liable for damages suffered in civil proceedings and may be criminally punished (including prison sentences for those who actually entered into the agreement). Other types of agreements, such as the .
B an agreement between a producer and a distributor, which the distributor will only sell in a specific area, will be evaluated according to the basic rule. In one case in the explanatory statement, the applicant must show that the defendant`s conduct seriously impairs competition in the market at issue and the Tribunal will provide evidence and arguments from the defendant that the conduct has favourable justifications for competition.