Abstract
The Hudson case has dual significance. First, it is important in its holding of a relatively new concept in fair trade legislation-the "notice" or "implied contract" doctrine under which resellers are deemed to have entered into a legislatively defined contract by accepting goods with notice of the fair trade price limitations. This concept, previously upheld in Virginia, finds its counterpart in the current Quality Stabilization Bills pending in Congress which would include provision for a federal right to enforce resale price maintenance against resellers of branded commodities who are given prior notice of price restrictions. A second respect in which the Hudson case may acquire significance lies in the renewed attention to Article IV, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution which it may invite, depending on future developments in litigation under the 1959 Ohio Fair Trade Act.
Recommended Citation
Richard W. Pogue, Hudson Fair Trade Case - The Need for Constitutional Amendment, 12 Clev.-Marshall L. Rev. 513 (1963)