For your amusement:

Does contract law fall within "Prices set by law and regulation". If I have a contract between myself and a supplier or a reseller that sets a contract price or otherwise controls the price of an item - for example like Best Buy reselling Apple iPads - does this pricing scenario fall under "Prices set by law and regulation". I would be obligated by "contract law" to sell an item at a particular price.

I tend to think of prices set by governmental or quasi-governmental bodies, like utility rate commissions, rather than monopolistic situations such as with the iPad...

For your amusement:

Does contract law fall within "Prices set by law and regulation". If I have a contract between myself and a supplier or a reseller that sets a contract price or otherwise controls the price of an item - for example like Best Buy reselling Apple iPads - does this pricing scenario fall under "Prices set by law and regulation". I would be obligated by "contract law" to sell an item at a particular price.

No, See FAR 15.403-1( c )(2): ?Prices set by law or regulation. Pronouncements in the form of periodic rulings, reviews, or similar actions of a governmental body, or embodied in the laws, are sufficient to set a price.?

A syntax nightmare.

The placement of the "or" is troublesome.

It could be read as two separate sentences:

Pronouncements in the form of periodic rulings, reviews, or similar actions of a governmental body are sufficient to set a price.

or

Pronouncements embodied in the laws are sufficient to set a price.

Your read:

Pronouncements in the form of laws or periodic rulings, reviews, or similar actions of a governmental body are sufficient to set a price.

Even if we accept your syntax, all laws are derived from the government. Why is "contract law" excluded?

For your amusement:

Does contract law fall within "Prices set by law and regulation". If I have a contract between myself and a supplier or a reseller that sets a contract price or otherwise controls the price of an item - for example like Best Buy reselling Apple iPads - does this pricing scenario fall under "Prices set by law and regulation". I would be obligated by "contract law" to sell an item at a particular price.

Even if we accept your syntax, all laws are derived from the government. Why is "contract law" excluded?

I assume that those questions were asked in jest, because if they were asked seriously it would reflect a profound ignorance of the nature of contract law and of the "prices set by law or regulation" rules in FAR. Indeed, it would reflect an ignorance so profound as to make further communication with the asker pointless, because the asker would be beyond the reach of the education necessary to make them understand. You would have to have nothing but free time on your hands to spend even a moment communicating with the asker about this matter.

Even if we accept your syntax, all laws are derived from the government. Why is "contract law" excluded?

"Contract law" doesn't generally set prices. Parties to contracts set prices.

A syntax nightmare.

The placement of the "or" is troublesome.

It could be read as two separate sentences:

Pronouncements in the form of periodic rulings, reviews, or similar actions of a governmental body are sufficient to set a price.

or

Pronouncements embodied in the laws are sufficient to set a price.

Your read:

Pronouncements in the form of laws or periodic rulings, reviews, or similar actions of a governmental body are sufficient to set a price.

Even if we accept your syntax, all laws are derived from the government. Why is "contract law" excluded?

Whose snytax?? It was a quote from FAR 15.403-1( c )(2).

What aspect of "contract law" are you referring to?

Ah! Joel has taken the bait.

By syntax, I meant that the construction of the sentence is not clear whether the reference to "law" referred directly and exclusively to a "governmental body", or the term stands alone.

If it stands alone - then what does "law" refer to?

It is not a defined term in the FAR, the FAR makes multiple specific references to law such as Public Law, Statute, State Law, Local Law, Case Law, Common Law, Applicable Law or just plain Law. Which reference does or does not apply in our case? In other posts, to determine a definition, some posters suggest we look to the dictionary. some posters suggest we look to the plain meaning of words.

If the government had a sole source contract with Best Buy, and on that contract was an iPad at the price that Best Buy is legally bound by contract law to sell it at, why could this price not be deemed to be set by law or regulation by the CO. It could perhaps be found to be fair and reasonable through other means, but why not this way? Would it be wrong?

I guess the reference to law in the FAR is so basic and fundamental as to be beyond question, in fun or otherwise.

Ah! Joel has taken the bait.

I'm curious what 'Whynot' thinks that the term "contract law" means. I wonder how contract law "establishes" (i.e., "creates") a price. Enforcing a price that has been agreed to in a contract does not establish that price.

Whynot asked "If I have a contract between myself and a supplier or a reseller that sets a contract price or otherwise controls the price of an item - for example like Best Buy reselling Apple iPads - does this pricing scenario fall under "Prices set by law and regulation". I would be obligated by "contract law" to sell an item at a particular price."

You are NOT required by "contract law" to sell an item at a particular price. If legal, you may be required by your contract to sell the item at some minimum or maximum cost. But "contract law" did not dictate that you establish this price. Your buyer may or may not accept your price or may or may not select you as the seller.

This resembles a vertical price-fixing agreement. I'm not a lawyer. See for instance: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/price+fixing and http://www.bingham.com/Media.aspx?MediaID=5214 for discussion.

The opening question was absurd. Only a person without any competence in contracting would have asked it. That's why I think Whynot was joking. I think he's still joking. At least, I hope so.

The opening question was absurd. Only a person without any competence in contracting would have asked it. That's why I think Whynot was joking. I think he's still joking. At least, I hope so.

Well, he does open the post with "for your amusement" so that would support your position that he's joking.