(صورة توضيحية فقط)
An arrangement where a retailer or wholesaler is contractually obligated to purchase most or all of its requirements for a product from a single supplier. It becomes anti-competitive if it forecloses a substantial share of the market from rival suppliers, preventing them from reaching customers and effectively competing, thereby creating or enhancing barriers to entry for new competitors. In a five forces analysis, such contracts reinforce supplier power and raise barriers for new entrants.
Unlike price fixing, exclusive dealing is not ‘per se’ illegal. Instead, it is typically evaluated under the ‘rule of reason’. This legal standard requires courts to conduct a detailed inquiry into the competitive effects of the arrangement, weighing the pro-competitive benefits against the anti-competitive harms. Pro-competitive justifications can include promoting interbrand competition, preventing free-riding by dealers on a supplier’s investments, and ensuring a dedicated and knowledgeable sales force.
The key anti-competitive harm is ‘foreclosure’—the denial of access to a sufficient portion of the distribution channels, which can prevent rival manufacturers from making sales and achieving economies of scale. The legality of an exclusive dealing contract often depends on several factors: the market power of the supplier imposing the contract, the percentage of the market foreclosed to competitors, the duration of the agreement, and the ease with which new distribution channels can be established. A short-term exclusive contract by a small new entrant might be seen as perfectly legal, while a long-term contract by a dominant incumbent that locks up 80% of distributors would likely be deemed illegal.
التعامل الحصري
(إذا كان التاريخ غير معروف أو غير ذي صلة، على سبيل المثال "ميكانيكا الموائع"، يتم توفير تقدير تقريبي لظهوره الملحوظ)
الصور والتنزيلات بالحجم الكامل متاحة فقط، ومجانية تمامًا، للأعضاء المسجلين.
> تسجيل الدخول <
