The ‘Solus’ Agreement in English Law and in the Law of the European Economic Community

  • William Rankin
Chapter

Abstract

As a legacy of the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community various aspects of our law, hitherto considered settled, will undergo reappraisal as a result of the jurisprudence of the Community. One particular field that will be the subject of considerable influence from concepts developed by the Court and Commission of the European Community is that concerning Restrictive Practices and Monopolies.

Keywords

Public Interest Price Competition Retail Outlet Filling Station European Economic Community 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Halsbury’s Statutes of England 3rd. Edition Vol.. 37.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coupled with careful drafting of any agreement.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A Liberal amendment to cover agreements under which only one party accepts a restriction was lost in Parliament (1956) H. C. Debates. Fifth series Vol. 551 Cols. 1998–2014.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    As amended by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 and the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Monopolies Commission. A report on the supply of petrol to retailers in the United Kingdom. 1965 (Paper 264) hereinafter referred to as `The 1965 Report’.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Monopolies Commission. A report on the supply of beer. (Paper 216). Hereinafter referred to as The 1969 Report’.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The 1965 Report para’io1.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The 1969 Report paraa44(footnote).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The 1965 Report page 162.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibid. paras 306–343.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibid. paras 344-429.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ibid. paras 364–379.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ibid. para 424.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ibid. para 428.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Now Secretary of State.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The 1965 Report pp. 171–181 and see subsequently (1965) Economica 410 and (1966) Economica 226.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Agip had a brief spell in the U.K. market.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    August 1965 at p. 543.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The 1969 Report. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paras 334-416.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    These figures are taken from the Report and thus may have varied with the passage of time.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    As compared with brewers `tied houses’.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Para 393 (4).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paras 284/5.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Para 393 (5).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paras 415–6.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    A Departmental Committee on Liquor Licensing has recently proposed novel changes in the Licensing Laws. Cmnd. 5154 1972.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A.C. 269; (1967) 2 W.L.R. 871; (1967) 1 All. E.R. 699.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ch. 1073; (1965) 2 W.L.R. 1299: (1965) 2 All. E.R. 176.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    T.L.R. 574; 45 Digest (Repl.) 510, 981.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    At p. 1085/6.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co. Ltd. (1891–94) All E.R. Rep. 1; (1894) A.C. 535; 71 L.T. 489 63 L.J. Ch. 908.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
    (i7ti) P.Wms. 181 at 193.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    (1916–17) All. E.R. Rep. 305 at 309.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    A.C. 548; 88 L.J.P.C. 59; 12o L.T. 613. 41• U.S. v. Standard Oil of California 337 U.S. 293 (1949).Google Scholar
  41. 42.
    Ch. APP. 654; 38 L.J. Ch. 665; 21 L.T. 188.Google Scholar
  42. 43.
    All. E.R. Rep. 88; (1934) 2 K.B. 1; 151 L.T. 242.Google Scholar
  43. 44.
    Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Harper’s Garage (Stourport) Ltd. (1966) 2 Q.B. 514; (1965) 3 W.L.R. 469; (1965) 2 All. E.R. 933.Google Scholar
  44. 45.
    i W.L.R. 956; (1965) 2 All. E.R. 644.Google Scholar
  45. 46.
    At 649/50.Google Scholar
  46. 47.
    See e.g. Catt v. Tourie (supra.); Clegg v. Hands (1890); 44 Ch.D. 503; 59 L.J. Ch. 477, Biggs v. Hoddinott (1895; 99) All E.R. Rep. 625; (1898) 2 Ch. 307.Google Scholar
  47. 48.
    As to Loans and Advances of Rebate see The 1965 Report paras i 10–121.Google Scholar
  48. 49.
    Ch. 146; (1966) 2 W.L.R. 318; (1966) 1 All. E.R. 126. 5o. (1966) 2 Q.B. 514; (1966) 2 W.L.R. 1043; (1966) 1 All E.R. 725.Google Scholar
  49. 51.
    At p. 169.Google Scholar
  50. 52.
    (1911–13) All E.R. Rep. 1120 at 1122/3.Google Scholar
  51. 53.
    Cf. Bouchard Servais v. Prince’s Hall Restaurant Ltd. (Supra.); McEllistrim v. Ballymacelligott Co-Operative Agricultural and Dairy Society Ltd. (Supra.) English Hop Growers Ltd. v. Dering (1928) All E.R. Rep. 396.Google Scholar
  52. 54.
    The 1969 Report para 161 and footnote.Google Scholar
  53. 55.
    At p. 171–173 e.g. Cooper v. Twibill (18o8) 3 Camp. 286n; Holcombe v. Hewson (1810) 2 Camp. 391; and other cases cited by his Lordship.Google Scholar
  54. 56.
    At p. 173.Google Scholar
  55. 57.
    See Vancouver Malt & Sake Brewing’ : Co. Ltd. v. Vancouver Breweries Ltd. (1934) A.C. 181. Google Scholar
  56. 58.
    See Submissions of Counsel Ch. p. 165.Google Scholar
  57. 59.
    At p. 179.Google Scholar
  58. 60.
    At p. 181/2.Google Scholar
  59. 61.
    At p. 184.Google Scholar
  60. 62.
    Per Lord Atkinson in McEllistrim v. Ballymacelligot Co-Operative. Agricultural and Dairy Society (1919) A.C. at p. 574.Google Scholar
  61. 63.
  62. 64.
    Unenforceable since the Resale Prices Act 1964 but taken into account by the Court in assessing the reasonableness of the agreement at the time it was concluded.Google Scholar
  63. 65.
    Q.B. 514 at p. 574.Google Scholar
  64. 66.
    The 1965 Report paras 313–331 inc.Google Scholar
  65. 67.
    At para 428 (i).Google Scholar
  66. 68.
    At p. 578.Google Scholar
  67. 69.
    At p. 565. 7o. Cf. The 1965 Report para 428 (2).Google Scholar
  68. 71.
    Cf. Biggs v. Hoddinott and Morgan v. Jeffreys (1910) i Ch. 620; 26 T.L.R. 324.Google Scholar
  69. 72.
    W.L.R. 1210; (1966) 2 All E.R. 454.Google Scholar
  70. 73.
    A.C. 269; (1967) 2 W.L.R. 871; (1967) t All E.R. 699.Google Scholar
  71. 74.
    See e.g. Lord Reid p. 295; Lord Morris at p. 306; Lord Wilberforce at p. 332.Google Scholar
  72. 75.
    At p. 298; 306–309; 315–317.Google Scholar
  73. 76.
    At p. 328.Google Scholar
  74. 77.
    See The 1965 Report. Google Scholar
  75. 78.
    All E.R. 1686; 45 Digest (Repl.) 443; z68.Google Scholar
  76. 79.
    All E.R. 160; (1937) 1 K.B. 209; 106 L.J.K.B. 97; 155 L.T. 538.Google Scholar
  77. 80.
    At p. 332/3.Google Scholar
  78. 81.
  79. 82.
    At p. 321.Google Scholar
  80. 83.
    At p. 340.Google Scholar
  81. 84.
    See e.g. Wyatt v. Kreglinger and Fernau (1933) 1 K.E. 793; 49 T.L.R. 264, Eastham v. Newcastle United Football Club Ltd. (1964) Ch. 413, Bull v. Pitney-Bowes Ltd. (1967) 1 W.L.R. 273, Dickson v. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (1970) A.C. 403; (1968) 3 W.L.R. 286.Google Scholar
  82. 85.
    E.g. Eastman Photographic Materials Case (1898) A.C. 575.Google Scholar
  83. 86.
    At p. 302/3.Google Scholar
  84. 87.
    See e.g. British American Oil Co. v. Hey 0941) 4 D.L.R. 725 (Five years): Peters American Delicacy Co. Ltd. v. Patricia’s Chocolates & Candies Proprietary Ltd. (1947) 77 C.L.R. 574 (Three years): Ampol Petroleum Ltd. v. Mutton (1952) 53 S.R. (N.S.W.) i (Three years): Shell Co. of S.A. Ltd. v. Gerran’s Garage Ltd. (1954) (4) S.A. 752 (Five years).Google Scholar
  85. 88.
    Cleveland Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Darstrane Ltd. (1969) 1 W.L.R. 116: (1969) 1 All. E.R. 201.Google Scholar
  86. 89.
    At p. 202.Google Scholar
  87. 90.
    At p. 298.Google Scholar
  88. 91.
    W.L.R. 814; (1972) i All E.R. 513.Google Scholar
  89. 92.
    At p. 826.Google Scholar
  90. 93.
    Ch. 708; (1967) 2 W.L.R. 718: (1967) 2 All. E.R. 558.Google Scholar
  91. 94.
    In an Australian case—Amoco Australia Pty. Limited v. Rocca Bros. Motor Co. Ltd. judgment in which was delivered at 1st instance by Wells J. in April 1972 there was expert economic evidence before the Court.Google Scholar
  92. 95.
    At p. 827.Google Scholar
  93. 97.
    O.J. No. 13/204 of 21 February 1962.Google Scholar
  94. 98.
    Commission, First Report on Competition Policy. April 5972. P. 55. Google Scholar
  95. 99.
    O.J. No. 57/849 of 25 March 1967. On the Application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of exclusive dealing agreements.Google Scholar
  96. 100.
    O.J. No. C 4/5 24 January 1968. Bulletin 2/1968, January 1968. Chap. VIII; Rec. XIII pp. 525 ff. (1967).Google Scholar
  97. 101.
    The Second Brasserie de Haecht case, Case 48/72 a decision on Article 85 and Regulation 17/62, deals mainly with notification.Google Scholar
  98. 102.
    See the Salgoil Case, Case 13/68. Rec. XIV (1968) pp. 672–4; 6 C.M.L.R. 1968 pp. 478–485.Google Scholar
  99. 103.
    Thus the Court restates a previous ruling regarding exclusive distributorship agreements. (Société technique minière (L.T.M.) v. Maschinenbau Ulm G.M.B.H. (M.B.U.) O.J. No. 170 29 September 1966, p. 3013; Bulletin 8/1966 Chap. V; Rec. XII (1966) pp. 337 ff.Google Scholar
  100. 104.
    Commission, First Report on Competition Policy, pp. 102–103. Undertaken pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation 17/62.Google Scholar
  101. 105.
    Case 8–11/66. O.J. No. 65, 6 April 1967, p. 1025; Bulletin 5/1967 Chap. VI; Rec. XIII (1967) PP. 93 ff.Google Scholar
  102. 106.
    See however Article 3(b) ii and Article 6 thereof.Google Scholar
  103. 107.
    Cases 56 and 58/64. Grundig-Consten v. E.E.C. Commission. O.J. No. 17o 29 September 1966, P. 3015; July 1966 Bulletin 9/10–66, Chap. VIII; Rec. XII (1966) pp. 429 ff.Google Scholar
  104. 108.
    Supra, and see also joined Cases 8–11/66 Noordwiiks Cement Accoord Case. Rec. XIII (1967) PP. 93 ff.Google Scholar
  105. 109.
    C.M.L. Rev. p. 197.Google Scholar
  106. 110.
    See Rec. XIII (1967) P. 533.Google Scholar
  107. 111.
    Article 3 of the Law on Restrictions of Competition. Commentators agree that if one is considering whether a third party is prevented from access to the market or whether competition is noticeably restrained, account should be taken of the whole system of contracts established by the particular supplier. See e.g. Lempfuhl: Vertriebsverbindungen 1965 p. 57.Google Scholar
  108. 112.
    Clayton Act: Article 3 and Standard Oil Co. Case (cited supra.) Lessing v. Tidewater Oil Co. Ltd. 327 F 2d454, 1964 Trade Cases 70, 993.Google Scholar
  109. 113.
    In his observations in the Bilger v. Jehle case (O.J. No. C 41/8, 4 April 197o) Advocate-General Gand mentioned that in the German Market 8o % of German innkeepers are tied and 6o of the whole production of German breweries is sold under the regime of exclusive contracts.Google Scholar
  110. 114.
    See case 5169 Völk v. Vervaecke O.J. No. C 105/15 14 August 1969; Bulletin 9–10/1969; and also Commission notice on agreements, decisions and concerted practices of minor importance which do not fall under Article 85(1). O.J. No. C 64/I, 2 June 197o.Google Scholar
  111. 115.
    Continental Can Case. Decision of Community Court Feb. 21. 1973. Rec. 1973 XIX pp. 215 ff.Google Scholar
  112. 116.
    The effect of Article 4 para 2(1) of Regulation 17 as interpreted by the Court of Justice in Bilger v. Jehle (Case 43/69) and Vereeniging van Cementhandelaren (Case 8/72) Rec. XVIII (1972) pp. 977 ff. is that an agreement between two undertakings in the same member state may indeed affect trade between member states (thus following the First Brasserie de Haecht Case). However, a brewery agreement of this kind is itself exempted from notification by Article 4(2) (i) if it does not concern trade between member states. Thus `affect trade between member states’ is wider than `concern trade between member states’. Article 5 of Reg. 17 applies to ‘old agreements’ which in this context covers `accession agreements’ too—those made before 1 January 1973 and that become subject to Community law by reason of the accession of new members. (Reg. 27, [1972) C.M.L.R. D35 and Reg. 17 Article 25 added by Treaty of Accession—Article 29 and Annex I part V.) Article 5 para 2 exempts application of para t thereof in the same terms as Article 4 para 2 of Reg. 17.Google Scholar
  113. 117.
    See e.g. The Second Brasserie de Haecht Case (Case 48/72). Rec. 1973 pp. 77 ff.Google Scholar
  114. 118.
    W.L.R. 38o; (1973) C.M.L.R. p. 74 p. 665. The latter is a more complete report of the judgement.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Rankin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations