本文選題：反壟斷法 + 掠奪性定價(jià)　； 參考：《湖南大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：掠奪性定價(jià)是一種企業(yè)濫用其市場(chǎng)支配地位,以低于成本的價(jià)格銷售商品的行為。由于企業(yè)的掠奪性定價(jià)行為,其他市場(chǎng)主體的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)權(quán)利受到了限制,并間接影響到了消費(fèi)者的權(quán)益和社會(huì)的整體利益。掠奪性定價(jià)的危害性引起了各國(guó)立法和實(shí)務(wù)的重視,在各國(guó)已制定的反壟斷法律之中,該行為都受到了禁止。 隨著社會(huì)發(fā)展不斷深入,社會(huì)分工日益細(xì)化,進(jìn)一步增加了市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的復(fù)雜性,由此導(dǎo)致掠奪性定價(jià)行為與正常的價(jià)格競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為較難區(qū)分,因此,掠奪性定價(jià)的判斷和規(guī)制成為反壟斷法上一個(gè)較為復(fù)雜的制度。掠奪性定價(jià)行為一般具有以下構(gòu)成要件：首先,掠奪性定價(jià)的實(shí)施主體是在市場(chǎng)上占據(jù)支配地位的企業(yè)。掠奪性定價(jià)的一個(gè)重要條件是在排斥同行競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者之后,占支配地位的企業(yè)提高價(jià)格攫取壟斷利潤(rùn)。而未占據(jù)市場(chǎng)支配地位的企業(yè)即使實(shí)施了低于成本的銷售行為也不會(huì)產(chǎn)生排斥競(jìng)爭(zhēng)和損害消費(fèi)者權(quán)益的后果,因此不受反壟斷法的規(guī)制。其次,企業(yè)把商品的價(jià)格定在成本之下。商人的天性是追求利潤(rùn)的最大化,因此,低于成本價(jià)格銷售的行為表面上看是不理性和不符合經(jīng)濟(jì)原則的,但是實(shí)質(zhì)上該行為的目的是通過(guò)排擠競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手、獲得壟斷地位后謀取更大的利潤(rùn)。最后,掠奪性定價(jià)必須具備補(bǔ)償?shù)目赡苄浴Ｆ髽I(yè)實(shí)施掠奪性定價(jià)行為的本質(zhì)是犧牲短期利潤(rùn)的一種前期“假象”,其根本目的卻是將來(lái)能夠通過(guò)提高價(jià)格來(lái)補(bǔ)償由于低于成本銷售而導(dǎo)致的損失。美國(guó)的司法實(shí)踐對(duì)掠奪性定價(jià)的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)探索了相當(dāng)長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間。美國(guó)通過(guò)判例先后確立了幾種不同的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),最初是關(guān)注企業(yè)是否具有壟斷化的動(dòng)機(jī)；阿里達(dá)和特納的成本學(xué)說(shuō)使得成本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成為掠奪性定價(jià)的重要考察標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；而在后來(lái)的布魯克集團(tuán)公司案中補(bǔ)償標(biāo)準(zhǔn)得以確立。美國(guó)關(guān)于掠奪性定價(jià)問(wèn)題的探索歷程告訴我們?nèi)魏我粋�(gè)國(guó)家關(guān)于該行為的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)都不是一層不變的,需要結(jié)合該國(guó)的具體情況進(jìn)行具體的判斷,我國(guó)在確定掠奪性定價(jià)的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時(shí)也應(yīng)該遵循因地制宜的原則對(duì)我國(guó)的實(shí)際情況進(jìn)行考量。
[Abstract]:Predatory pricing is the behavior of an enterprise that abuses its dominant market position and sells goods at a price below cost. Because of the predatory pricing behavior of enterprises, the competitive rights of other market entities are restricted, and indirectly affect the interests of consumers and the overall interests of society. The harmfulness of predatory pricing has aroused the attention of the legislation and practice of various countries. With the deepening of social development, the social division of labor is increasingly refined, further increasing the complexity of the market economy, resulting in predatory pricing behavior and normal price competition behavior is difficult to distinguish, therefore, The judgment and regulation of predatory pricing has become a complicated system in anti-monopoly law. Predatory pricing generally has the following elements: firstly, the main body of predatory pricing is the dominant enterprise in the market. An important condition of predatory pricing is that, after excluding competitors, dominant enterprises increase prices and grab monopoly profits. However, even if the enterprises do not occupy the dominant position in the market, they will not have the consequences of excluding competition and harming the rights and interests of consumers, so they are not regulated by the anti-monopoly law. Secondly, the enterprise sets the price of the commodity below the cost. The businessman's nature is to maximize profits, so selling below the cost is seemingly irrational and uneconomic, but in essence it is aimed at squeezing out competitors. Gain a monopoly and gain greater profits. Finally, predatory pricing must have the possibility of compensation. The essence of predatory pricing is to sacrifice the short-term profit, but its fundamental purpose is to compensate for the loss caused by the sale below the cost by raising the price in the future. Judicial practice in the United States has explored the criteria of predatory pricing for a long time. The United States has established several different judgment standards through the precedents at first it pays attention to whether the enterprises have monopolization motivation; Arida and Turner's cost theory makes the cost standard become an important criterion of predatory pricing. In the later Brooke Group case, the standard of compensation was established. The course of exploration on predatory pricing in the United States has told us that any country's criteria for judging this act are not constant, and it is necessary to make specific judgments in the light of the specific circumstances of that country. In determining the criterion of predatory pricing, our country should follow the principle of local conditions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D971.2;DD912.29

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 于立帥;;反壟斷的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析——基于哈佛學(xué)派與芝加哥學(xué)派的分歧[J];山東工商學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年03期

2 Adrian Emch;Gregory K.Leonard;;掠奪性定價(jià)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)及法律分析——美國(guó)和歐盟的經(jīng)驗(yàn)與趨勢(shì)[J];法學(xué)家;2009年05期

3 游鈺;論反壟斷法對(duì)掠奪性定價(jià)的規(guī)制[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2004年06期

4 王素芬,崔麗;試論掠奪性定價(jià)的認(rèn)定與立法規(guī)制[J];遼寧行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年04期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 強(qiáng)宇;論反壟斷法中掠奪性定價(jià)行為的法律規(guī)制[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2005年

，

本文編號(hào)：1905018