社會發展與法律的規範性、前瞻性與滯後性──以反壟斷法上限制轉售價格規定「當然違法」原則之妥適性為例

Rethinking the Appropriateness of the Per Se Rule for Vertical Price Restraints in Antitrust Law

垂直價格限制亦稱轉售價格維持，係指不同生產或階層之上下層事業，就產品轉售價格為一定之限制合意或契約。交易當事人間限制轉售價格行為係廠商間垂直限制之一種。德國立法例上對於轉售價格限制並非當然違法，而美國自Leegin案判決後，轉售價格之限制亦非「當然違法」，對比中華人民共和國反壟斷法及臺灣公平交易法之規定，仍係禁止任何型態之轉售價格維持。現行法下轉售價格維持不問事業的市場力量，使用動機與對競爭的結果皆為不法，似不合理。惟無論我國實務是否採用合理原則，若主管機關得就違反轉售價格禁止之案件予以類型化，或建立裁罰之參考參數，亦得適度減輕當然違法所造成一網打盡式的裁罰模式。

Vertical Price Restraints, also known as Resale Price Maintenance, refers to restraining the resale price by agreement or contract between vertical manufacturers. Price restraint between the parties of the transaction is a type of Vertical Restraints. Under German law, resale price maintenance will not definitely lead to illegality. Likewise, after Leegin case, resale price restraint will not be considered illegal per se in the United States. In contrast, according to the provisions of Fair Trade Act in Taiwan and Antitrust Law in People’s Republic of China, any patterns of resale price maintenance are definitely illegal. Illegal per se seems unreasonable in some situations under current law. However, whether the Rule of Reason is adopted or not, if the authorities can type the cases by different situations of violation or create the discretion standard for penalty execution, it may reduce the unreason under the legislation of illegal per se.