buy adobe master collection cs3 buy onenote 2007 microsoft com cheap windows 7 home premium to professional purchase microsoft word 2000 microsoft outlook 2010 discount cost of ms office 2013 purchase filemaker pro best price excel software purchase adobe acrobat professional 9 buy coreldraw graphics suite x4 online buy adobe acrobat 9 pro extended buy adobe dreamweaver cs3 mac buy windows 7 cheap online price of microsoft office 2010 home and business best price photoshop cs3 mac
buy cubase sx3 buy windows server 2008 activation key buying adobe photoshop cs2 buy ms office online buying microsoft office 2007 pro price of office 2013 starter best price acronis true image cheap rosetta stone latin america spanish buy microsoft expression web 3 in depth microsoft word for mac military discount cheap microsoft publisher software adobe flash cs5 pricing dragon naturally speaking discount code best price windows xp professional sp3 where to buy windows 7 software

A setback for Costco

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled yesterday in the case of Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hoen. The panel largely reversed the April, 2006 decision that declared much of Washington’s three-tier system to be unconstitutional.

Although the court did agree with Costco that the “post and hold” requirement that forces suppliers to post their prices and hold them unchanged for a period of time is unconstitutional, it disagreed with Costco on two main points. The first upheld the liquor board’s right to ban central warehousing, meaning that distributors must deliver product to each retail store instead of to a central warehouse owned by the retailer. This takes away a key advantage that Costco has in efficient distribution. The court also upheld the liquor board’s right to ban high-volume discounts to different retailers.

Both sides now have the option of appealing the court’s decision within two weeks. They could also appeal to the United States Supreme Court within three months. Costco has expressed disappointment in the decision, but it is not clear whether either side will appeal the ruling.

Read the full Court of Appeals decision

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>