Exclusive Manufacturing Agreement Competition Law
The Swedish Competition Authority accepts the obligations of training companies* Bruce is a company that offers training services. The company proposed to limit the use of exclusive contracts with gyms in order to avoid competition concerns. The Swedish Competition Authority (…) The Guidelines on Vertical Restraints state that “under an exclusive distribution agreement, the supplier undertakes to sell its products to a single distributor to be resold in a given area.” The Guidelines on Vertical Restraints specify that the potential competitive risks associated with exclusive distribution consist mainly of reducing intra-brand competition and allocating the market, which may in particular facilitate price discrimination. Exclusive distribution may lead to the closure of other distributors and harm competition at this level. If most or all suppliers apply exclusive distribution, this can lessen competition and facilitate collusion. Another contractual clause, which may lead to de facto exclusivity, is an “English clause” which obliges the buyer to declare to the seller any better offer and allows a buyer to accept such an offer only if the supplier does not satisfy it. It is also called “meeting of competition” or “right of pre-emption”. Moreover, these clauses have the same effect on competition as single brand clauses, since the buyer is required to reveal who makes the best offer, i.e. because they deprive the buyer of the freedom to accept an improved offer (because he must first inform the supplier). It should be noted that a fair competition process is always full of uncertainties about the future outcome, which will encourage each market player to make the best offer pending competition and that any restriction that reduces uncertainties in the selection process may harm competition. In the field of exclusive distribution, this quarter there was an interesting decision by the Paris Court of Appeal that reminds us of the importance of carefully anticipating the end of the contract and the end of the resulting exclusivity obligation. Since 1 June 1995, a supplier (…) A company that had entered into a franchise agreement with Casino for the operation of a savings business felt aggrieved by the pricing policy it implemented and based its argument, although unsuccessful, on its contractual and delicate liability. Absence of contract failure (…) This section selects books on topics related to competition law and economics.
This compilation does not seek to be exhaustive, but to provide an overview of the topics that are important in the region. The survey generally includes publication within the last three months following the publication of the last issue of (…) Agreements may be judged under Articles 3(4) and 4 of the Act. However, account should be taken of the fact that the dominant position of an undertaking has traditionally led to a heavier burden of proof in justifying its conduct. Although there is no precedent in India, it is likely that the ICC will remove a sheet from the EC`s Guidelines on Vertical Restraints and require a dominant undertaking that imposes an exclusivity agreement to justify its conduct by proof: (i) that exclusivity leads to pro-competitive efficiencies; (ii) that exclusivity is essential for achieving competitive efficiency gains; (iii) the efficiency gains likely to promote competition outweigh the likely anti-competitive effects; (iv) the conduct is not contrary to effective competition; and (v) the Party passes on the efficiency benefits to final consumers. On 27 April 2018, subject to obligations, the Autorité authorised the acquisition by Carrefour Supermarkets France of sole control of the companies Zormat and Les Chênes, which operate two businesses, mainly dominated by food, with service stations under the Carrefour Market (…) The Competition Council has developed the “Guide to Vertical Agreements” for public debates to help companies which, on a case-by-case basis, must assess the compatibility of the vertical agreements they wish to (…) There is a de facto exclusive supply agreement when the seller manipulates the contractual agreements in such a way that the buyer is required to concentrate all its requirements by a single seller. . . .