A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2019; you can also visit the original URL.
The file type is
The Economics of Passing on: A Reply to Harris and Sullivan
University of Pennsylvania law review
The Supreme Court in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois:' held that only the direct purchaser from a price-fixing seller (or other antitrust violator) may sue for damages under the antitrust laws; indirect purchasers (that is, purchasers farther down the chain of production and distribution to whom some part of the cartel or monopoly overcharge may have been passed on) may not. In a recent article we argued that this rule promotes the compensatory, and especially the deterrent, objectives ofdoi:10.2307/3311678 fatcat:6sdr5mj4xbd3njgnppsqpkdo6m