European Court Votes For Higher Prices

[Bereta_Eder]

I have a question for Roland if he knows it.

In one of the eurocoins we will have in Greece we will have as a emblem the Owl. (it was upon the very first ancient drachma - as far as we kinow from the discoveries). In other eurocoins there will be other emblems or faces.

I imagine MS has the liberty to shape up the image its coin as it pleases.

Now if I go with my euro owl to Austria and a guy at a press stand sees it will he understand it's valid?

How will this work?

Will euro coins have a common side saying only «euro»?

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Roland
"Only in Capitalism can you buy Gas, Electronics and CD's cheaper than a bottle of water"

What the **** are you paying for your water ?!?!?!

ROFL.... 1.75 for 20 ounze is about right.


0.69 cents for a singles CD at Kmart

0.86 cents for a gallon of gas

1.50 for a pair of headphones




Want more example?

[Dauphin]

Will euro coins have a common side saying only «euro»?

As far as I know the heads side will always be the same.

In the UK, for example, there are one pound coins with leeks, dragons, thistles, three lions, single lions, crosses, roses etc, yet they are easily distinguishable as one pund coins by size, shape and the heads side which is identical on every coin.

[Provost Harrison]

Well typical of where 'free trade' is quite acceptable, but only when it suits the ends of the profiteer. I have no more confidence in the European Union as an establishment over the British Parliament or anyone. It is a stupid move, if it helps to drop prices, there should be no problem with doing it. Whatsoever It is good for the consumer. If it can be sourced at a cheaper price, it shows they are being overcharged in this market. Typical f**king policy decisions. Keeping the boys rich as ever.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well typical of where 'free trade' is quite acceptable, but only when it suits the ends of the profiteer. I have no more confidence in the European Union as an establishment over the British Parliament or anyone. It is a stupid move, if it helps to drop prices, there should be no problem with doing it. Whatsoever It is good for the consumer. If it can be sourced at a cheaper price, it shows they are being overcharged in this market. Typical f**king policy decisions. Keeping the boys rich as ever.

you are correct.

[Dauphin]

Devil's advocate

Well typical of where 'free trade' is quite acceptable, but only when it suits the ends of the profiteer

Well isn't that the same as most peoples views.

You are for economic freedom on this issue. On other issues you are anti-economic freedom. Its vested interest on everyones side

[Roland]

GP:

"Sounds like the companies are just trying to prevent arbitrage. I don't see much reason for the government to bend over to help this..."

Well, in the absence of a global trade mark regime, the choice was made for domestic exhaustion - ie, they can price "discriminate" between the EEA and non-EEA.

paiktis:

"I imagine MS has the liberty to shape up the image its coin as it pleases."

On one side, yes. The other is standardized. That will be a bit confusing though, with coins circulating all across the eurozone.

faded glory:

"ROFL.... 1.75 for 20 ounze is about right."

20 "ounze" ? What's that in metric measurement ?

Provost Harrison:

"Whatsoever It is good for the consumer. If it can be sourced at a cheaper price, it shows they are being overcharged in this market."

It's lower prices vs brand development. If you consider yourself overcharged, just don't buy Levi's.

[Gary]

(Un)common sense tells you that once you've sold an item on, you should have no further say in the matter. If you sell them with a trade mark, or anything else, then that constitutes part of the deal. If you didn't want it sold on again with your trade mark on, you shouldn't have traded the goods with it on there in the first place.

This is just another example of the insanity the masses have to put up with from those who are supposed to be setting good guidelines. If I didn't know better I'd assume it stank of corruption, and behind the scenes big business agreements, but of course, that can't be the case. One should not attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

[Roland]

"If you didn't want it sold on again with your trade mark on, you shouldn't have traded the goods with it on there in the first place."

Emphasis on "there" ? IIRC Tesco imported Levi's products that were initially distributed through Singapur.

"If I didn't know better I'd assume it stank of corruption, and behind the scenes big business agreements, but of course, that can't be the case."

There are vested big business interests on both sides of the issue. Also those with no vested interest are split on the domestic vs international exhaustion issue; the dispute about that in academia has been going on since the Silhouette judgment at least...

[Gary]

If the jeans sported a "Singapur" label, then fine they should be sold with that label. But it is perfectly reasonable to inform the buying public of the truth of the garments origins as well.

I heard the argument LEVI themselves put forward to try to justify their stance. Full of holes. Nonsense about the public wanting to buy the more expensive version from a special shop. If they truely believe that, why don't they let Tesco test the theory then And nonsense about loss of earnings to plough back into designing new goods. In that case why isn;t there a loss of earnings problem when they flog them cheap outside the UK (or the EU) then ? Patently nonsense failing to justify rip off prices.

I just wonder about the younger folk today (yes I know it make me sound like I'm ancient). Do teenagers and twenties feel the need for jeans like the 60s and 70s generations did ? If not then the market for the jeans are basically the older folk who were around then, and who are getting rather pissed off at being taken advantage of. One prefers to buy a brand name expecting the quality to be reasonable, to keep the company's reputation. But there are limits.

[Solly]

Gary,

Nonsense about the public wanting to buy the more expensive version from a special shop. If they truely believe that, why don't they let Tesco test the theory then

What about the customers who have already bought the product for the high price? They deserve to know their jeans are still as prestigious as the money they paid for them suggested.

Please think more of the consumer.

Do teenagers and twenties feel the need for jeans like the 60s and 70s generations did ?

There's a lot more variety this decade. The emphasis is on individuality, rather than always wearing jeans, or always wearing shellsuits. Etc.

and who are getting rather pissed off at being taken advantage of

Yes! NASTY jeans makers forcing you to pay £30 for a pair of jeans, totally despicable.

One prefers to buy a brand name expecting the quality to be reasonable, to keep the company's reputation

That's just down to preferences.

[Roland]

"Nonsense about the public wanting to buy the more expensive version from a special shop. If they truely believe that, why don't they let Tesco test the theory then"

Because that would exactly ruin the snob premium.

"If not then the market for the jeans are basically the older folk who were around then, and who are getting rather pissed off at being taken advantage of. One prefers to buy a brand name expecting the quality to be reasonable, to keep the company's reputation. But there are limits."

So if it's too expensive, don't buy it. Just like I don't buy Bordeauxs, as I get better value for money from say Riojas.

[Gary]

Because that would exactly ruin the snob premium.

LEVI chose to ruin that themselves when they sold the same product cheaper. there should be no restriction on the truth.

So if it's too expensive, don't buy it.

That's what I said LEVI was risking. But that doesn't alter the fact that because the consumer does have this option, it is still not right to allow a company carte blanche to dictate things that are clearly outside a reasonable limit of their influence. It is wrong to be able to dictate how someone who has bought something off of you should charge for selling the goods on.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*

While the UK government backed Tesco, the French and Italian administrations sided with the brand owners.

Interesting...

Are you searching for a "UK against the rest of EU" case again Iain? I'd look elsewhere because the German, Finnish and Swedish government had an opposite stance of France in this suitcase. (UK wasn’t even part)

Gary, Levis is high-profile because of its history but it’s hardly amongst the most exciting brands, even in the jeans segment. There’s a lot more competition from a lot more brands that there used to be, not even considering the fact many prefer low-profile brands.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland
GP:

"Sounds like the companies are just trying to prevent arbitrage. I don't see much reason for the government to bend over to help this..."

Well, in the absence of a global trade mark regime, the choice was made for domestic exhaustion - ie, they can price "discriminate" between the EEA and non-EEA.

Why? What's the connection? We're talking about resale of goods they made themselves. From a country where their trademark is honored. Why should the government help them out by putting restrictions on resale in this one special case but not do so within the EU?