Foffa Bikes appear to admit to price fixing with Wiggle in Bike Biz article

Or Dispatches...

At the Masterstrokers HQ,his financial backers have asked HIPPY to mass produce a batch of his WHAT A CUNT stickers, to replace the ones on their bikes

They weren't my stickers.. you'll have to thank BDW for those. I just paraded the most of them :)

Time for a reissue?

Actually, I want "cool" stickers made to cover the "back" on "Cyclists stay back" plates.

"Cyclists stay cool!"

Someone do that for me please.

That's fucking awesome.
Banxy lol

The spiked paragraph is still in the PDF version of the print magazine, which you can download here http://www.bikebiz.com/digital-edition

Direct link - http://www.bikebiz.com/product/index/download/id/34

~~

But if Wiggle are agreeing to this, then what other suppliers do they have a similar agreement with?

And from that, just how bad is the bike marketplace from a consumer perspective?

As you would expect, the Americans have it right, and the Europeans (who are basically Fascists groping towards an understanding of freedom) have stuck their oar in where regulation isn't needed.

It's perfectly fine (morally) for Foffa to contract with Wiggle et al to supply their branded product on condition that it is retailed at a certain price. That's freedom of contract for you. If certain retailers have a lower cost base, they will make larger profits, and can use those to offer other things (e.g. Haribo) to consumers in order to differentiate themselves, thereby putting the smaller, higher cost, retailers out of business.

It's not fine for Foffa, Charge, Mongoose et al to enter into a covert agreement that their base models will never be wholesaled below a certain price. That's a cartel, and defrauds the consumer by creating a false impression that the lowest price for a horrible fixie skidder has been settled by the market, since all the manufacturers seem to be selling at that price, whereas the price has actually been set by a secret agreement between manufacturers who have decided not to compete with one another.

So, to answer your question, how bad is the bike market for consumers? It's fine. There's plenty of (illegal in the EU) vertical price maintenance, but also a lot of truly free market action, and basically no evidence of any horizontal price maintenance (cartels). Americans who 'suffer' from vertical price maintenance in some areas tend to exploit the EU prohibition on same by shopping in the much cheaper EU. EU citizens who think they might be disadvantaged by whatever illegal vertical price maintenance is going on have more than enough choice to buy other brands who don't operate in the same way and certainly don't conspire with others to operate cartels.~~

But if Wiggle are agreeing to this, then what other suppliers do they have a similar agreement with?

And from that, just how bad is the bike marketplace from a consumer perspective?

It's fine. There's plenty of (illegal in the EU) vertical price maintenance, but also a lot of truly free market action, and basically no evidence of any (immoral, and illegal pretty much everywhere) horizontal price maintenance (cartels). EU citizens who think they might be disadvantaged by whatever illegal vertical price maintenance is going on have more than enough choice to buy other brands who don't operate in the same way and certainly don't conspire with others to operate cartels.

As you would expect, the EU have stuck their oar in where regulation isn't needed. It's perfectly fine (morally; obviously it's illegal in the over-regulated EU) for Foffa to contract with Wiggle et al to supply their branded product on condition that it is retailed at a certain price. That's freedom of contract for you, the one really basic human right which has never been formally recognised by European supra-national authorities.

Before this creates any more misunderstandings allow me to clarify this matter, Foffa has never enforced ‘price fixing’ to any of its resellers. Foffa has never discussed or agreed any retail prices with Wiggle and Wiggle has always been free to set the retail price it sells our product to its customers. Foffa was clumsily making the point that Wiggle is a good distribution outlet for the Foffa brand and that other retails should not consider Wiggle in a negative light. Wiggle has never discussed retail price setting with Foffa and any implication that it might have done so is erroneous, for which Foffa apologises to all of you.

So was the journalist making up your words, or did you misspeak? I can see why you might have to apologise to Wiggle, because they have probably just sent you a lawyer's letter demanding a retraction of your statement that they conspired with you to break the law, but the rest of the quote seems to be pretty solidly a statement of a desire to engage in retail price maintenance with everybody else.

That’s the first thing many dealers question and they’re right to ask. Except for a lower specced line of our single speed models, which is exclusive to Wiggle, they and every other retailer working with us are forbidden from discounting, since part of our business model is a consistent pricing structure to ensure that the prices are the same no matter where the customers will purchase our bikes from

At least this débâcle will provide a useful test of the durability of Foffa's freewheel ratchets, as he back-pedals furiously.

... Foffa has never discussed or agreed any retail prices with Wiggle and Wiggle has always been free to set the retail price it sells our product to its customers.... Wiggle has never discussed retail price setting with Foffa and any implication that it might have done so is erroneous, for which Foffa apologises to all of you.

they and every other retailer working with us are forbidden from discounting

How do you forbid people from discounting without discussing retail prices then?

I imagine Dani and the Foffa PR guy to be like Harry and Marv.
Everytime Dani cocks up the PR team comically smack him over the back of the head.

Damn it Marv!

I only have my own experiences as evidence but I have never seen the EU as being a cheap source of stuff I could get in the US. Usually it is the opposite.

The US rules on this stuff are confusing as fuck. Just read the wiki if you don't believe. Also, you get those weird cases where you don't get told the price until you try to buy something (if they have discounted it beyond a minimum advertised price).

Also, the 'are basically fascists' rhetoric is silly and reminds me of Rik.

The Young Ones...I want to send a telegram... - YouTube

Incidentally, here's how Apple manages price fixing. Legal, just:

(from http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/gizmos/2006/12/gadgets_for_sale_or_not.html)

Somehow I don't think Foffa could manage this...

Was just about to ask about this, thanks.

As per, if you're big enough and can pay the right kind of lawyers and accountants, the rules don't apply. How's that free market working eh?

How's that free market working eh?

Pretty well. There are plenty of alternatives to Apple if you don't like their prices. There is no compelling public interest which would make government interference with Apple's contracts desirable.

It's perfectly fine (morally) for Foffa to contract with Wiggle et al to supply their branded product on condition that it is retailed at a certain price. That's freedom of contract for you.

I'm not sure what the qualifier "morally" is supposed to do to the sentence.

And we weren't talking about the wholesale price, we're talking about the retail price to the end customer.

"freedom of contract" is misguided as an idea too.

Contract law does not take precedence over other laws.

You can put whatever you like in a contract, but it doesn't mean it's enforceable, realistic, or that it is right in any way (morally or otherwise). Generally if you put something in a contract that isn't legal, it invalidates the contract.

The UK (not EU) law I cited was abundantly clear on this:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/53/enacted#section-9

1. Minimum resale prices maintained by contract or agreement
   
   

(1) Any term or condition—

(a) of a contract for the sale of goods by a supplier to a dealer, or

(b) of any agreement between a supplier and a dealer relating to such a sale,

is void in so far as it purports to establish or provide for the establishment of minimum prices to be charged on the resale of the goods in the United Kingdom.

So any term or condition in a contract (or agreement, this law does cover verbal arrangements too) that has Foffa Bikes determining the retail price of an item, specifically the minimum price... very specifically in this case let's look at Dani's quote:

[Wiggle] and every other retailer working with us are forbidden from discounting

Dani asserts that they cannot discount, so Dani is asserting that there is a minimum retail price that Foffa Bikes forbids retailers from going below.

This is detached from the wholesale price Foffa Bikes sets, Wiggle and others are not permitted by Foffa Bikes to sell the bikes below a certain price.

Continuing with the UK law:

(2)It is unlawful for a supplier of goods (or for an association or person acting on behalf of such suppliers)—

(a)to include in a contract for sale or agreement relating to the sale of goods a term or condition which is void by virtue of this section ;

And there we have it. It's unlawful to include in any contract or agreement any condition that sets the minimum retail price.

As the contract itself would then be rendered illegal, Wiggle are under no obligation at all to honour any such clause (or frankly, anything else in a contract that contains such a clause).

Hence the bigger question unrelated to Foffa, are Wiggle complicit in fixing the minimum price of items that they sell based on such contracts and arrangements?

And finally, since you seem to think this is some EU thing (some bizarre political argument you have going on there), it's worth noting that the UK law predates the EU law and the UK membership of Europe. The UK law is from 1956, the EU law is from after that date. But... that EU law does exist and does not contradict UK law really strengthens the UK law (it can't be challenged by some argument that an EU law makes it irrelevant).

As usual VB nails it.

I'd rep you if I thought you could care less for rep.

"freedom of contract" is misguided as an idea too.

It's only as misguided as the idea of freedom of speech. Of course, all rights can be circumscribed, but only where this is a compelling public interest in doing so. I can't see any compelling public interest in restricting contracts between manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers for the supply of bicycles, since the bicycle market is already very diverse and the barrier to entry at all levels is pretty low.

As usual VB nails it.

He successfully argues that retail price maintenance is illegal in the UK, under both domestic and EU law. Not sure why he had to go to such lengths, since my original post didn't contest that point, but I suppose if it makes him happy...

He successfully argues that retail price maintenance is illegal in the UK, under both domestic and EU law. Not sure why he had to go to such lengths, since my original post didn't contest that point, but I suppose if it makes him happy...

Perhaps it's because you actually argued the exact opposite:

It's perfectly fine (morally) for Foffa to contract with Wiggle et al to supply their branded product on condition that it is retailed at a certain price.

No. It's explicitly illegal in the UK and Europe.

As to why I had to go to such lengths... because you'd asserted the opposite of the truth, muddying the water in the process, and layered it with some weird US/EU free market political nonsense.

This is where I comprehend why others have such an issue with your arguing style when it comes to bikes. You may be right, but the arguments are so convoluted and tangential that it's hard to know whether you have a point or not. It's an exercise in deconstruction to figure out what the core of the argument you're making is, and if you are trying to say you agreed with the law and opinions expressed in this thread regarding the law you certainly appeared to not do so. I wanted to make it clearer, not more muddied, that a supplier dictating the minimum price is illegal.

you'd asserted the opposite of the truth

Do you even read? In my first draft, I stated twice in the last paragraph that the price fixing complained of is illegal here. I've added an extra "illegal" now, just in case anybody needs any extra emphasis.

In bullet points:

1. Foffa may have conspired to break a law.
   
2. It's a stupid law.
   
3. Therefore, it's not the worst thing Foffa has ever done to cycling.
   

if you are trying to say you agreed with the law and opinions expressed in this thread regarding the law you certainly appeared to not do so

Possibly because those are two separate questions.

I agree with the opinions expressed in this thread regarding the law, i.e. that the quotation attributed to Foffa in the BikeBiz article is an admission that Foffa's contractual terms are in breach of the prevailing law.

I disagree with the law; I think it's unnecessary. In general, unnecessary law empowers governments, oppresses citizens and suppresses economic activity, all things which I think are a bad thing.

Isn't it time for a picture of a kitten?

Isn't it time for a picture of a kitten?

Hang on a sec. Legal arguments aside surely the more important point is - and I have to see if I have this right - Wiggle are actually selling Foffa bikes!?

I'm too scared to go on the site because if they are selling white, red, black and green bikes this is surely one of the signs of the apocalypse?

It's about time people recognised Demis Roussos as the visionary he really is.

Demis Roussos - Abigail's Party - YouTube

B&D Forever and Ever please dont post DOMESTOS ROUSSOS song/video links Fuckin hell gotta book myself into therapy scary shit and real fucking monsters