Distribution Agreements and EU Competition Law

Question: Discuss the distribution agreements and EU competition law. Answer: To: Jayne From: Subject: Suggestion regarding the Swedish business Date: Jayne, Issues In Concern: How the ban of the E-mailing potential customers who are outside Sweden will effect over the active and passive sales? Can Karlstad's Ability to e-mail the customers be banned but Fliodex without the effect of compliance over VRBE? How can the ban on the internet can affect the active-passive sales? Type of the restriction with relation to the internet selling the commission that regarded as the hardcore. Discussion: The answer to the first question will be that there is the various risk of the wrong companies spreading outside on a worldwide scale distributing the products in EU, and that gave rise to the interest to be vested on the review of the existing rules (Cruz 2014). The new regulations thus made significant changes in the regulations extending the scope of the safe harbor. The introduction of the laws made a threshold test on the new market and blocked the exemption for the same. So the article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) needed some clarification for the online sales within the scope of agreement distribution. So the newly introduced law had some hardcore restrictions upon the exemptions on the economic grounds (Harbord 2014). So, the effect of the new law would be such that there will be an effect on the vertical agreements in such manner that will restrict the competition. Article 101 also provides some legal framework to the that assesses the ve rtical trade and the distinction between the anti-competitive mode with the economic mode are taken into account. So concerning the article 101, there is an introduction to Article 101(1) that brings the restriction over the existing law. The new introduction prevented some outweigh practice, and this is the main reason why the ban on your online business to the outside of Sweden. The next question that comes here is whether your ban on the email will affect Flionex in any or not since he is the commercial partner in your ongoing business. So, in this scope, it is essential for you to understand that there is scope for the agreement of better distribution negotiation (Ahlert and Schefer 2013). It is quite obvious that there will be an effect over Flionex, so to prevent it is better that come for a negotiation with Andrew. Since, there is a mention of the agreement which they will be a part of, so they want that there will be all ban on the scope of poaching their customers. So, when the distributors court with each other, it is obvious that there is a long-lasting beneficial from the part of profit making, expanding sales, market share and lot more (Macnab 2013). It is wise to understand Andrew so that there will not be ban since that may cause in shrink of the geographical extension. So, it is expected that both the parties maintain a balance with due diligen ce, and there must be the reference for the comparison that proved success in such industry agreements. There is scope of the legal skirmish on the when there is termination, and that diminishes significantly (Nyman et al. 2014). So, keeping in mind the convenience and to not bring any effect over Flionex, the negotiation is advisable. The third discussion concerns about the effect that will fall upon the sales when there is a ban on the vertical or email the customers. We must agree on one fact, that email has a big effect on the business, and it is gets banned then the huge sector of the business gets its effect. The sending mail communication to the people is a huge advantage nowadays. It is quite obvious that there will be some effect on the business or even some critical effect over the procedure when there is a ban on the email servicing. The online business includes the long chain in the service. So with the practice of the competition regime under the article 101, there can be some scope for the company to go for the commercial agreements (Nagy 2013). Hence, it is advised to you to approach Mr. Andrew on the fact for the reconsideration of the agreement. Although there are some restrictions on the part of the article to go for the agreement, it is advisable to highlight certain facts. The facts must include the disadvantages that your online business might face and the assurance of the reason so that he may convince upon the ground that there will be no poaching over the new customers. For the discussion held here, there are some restrictions that Mr. Andrew can put forward concerning the act of Commission Regulation (EU) No330/2010 for the application of Article 101(3) (Korah 2014). The vertical mode of the business has affected the hardcore competitions giving rise to many negative outcomes. Hence, concerning the requirements, there is an introduction of the Block Exemption Regulation (hereafter known as the BER). The hardcore restrictions consist of the maintenance of the resale price value with the concern in territory restriction along with some selective distribution (Buccirossi 2015). Some selective distributors get the allowance to continue with the business upon the choice of the present distributors who feels that there will be no risk from the part of that business holder (Eberhardt 2015). There is a restriction of the market share which cannot exceed the limit of 30% when the regulations of BER cover the market. Conclusion: So, the conclusion from my place will be it is best advisable to go for a negotiation with Mr. Andrew so that the vertical system of business can be carried off well with the acceptance of the regulations along with the negotiation. It is advisable concerning the third as well as the fourth hardcore restriction to make your business an appointed distributor within the geographical territory of their business. The advice so made is also with the concern that Flionex is related to the business. Hence, by giving the assurance from your part that there will be no hindrance from your part of business, you can use carry on with the activity (Nurski and Verboven 2016). Also, it is important to show that there is a valid license of the business maintained from your end which might restrict the application of BER hardcore restrictions. Regards: References: Ahlert, D. and Schefer, B., 2013. The Risks of Resale Price Maintenance Prohibition for the Effectiveness of Inter-Brand Competition. InVertical Price Coordination and Brand Care(pp. 19-32). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Buccirossi, P., 2015. VERTICAL RESTRAINTS ON E-COMMERCE AND SELECTIVE DISTRIBUTION.Journal of Competition Law and Economics,11(3), pp.747-773. Cruz, J., 2014. The Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Regulation 330/2010: An exemption from certainty,pp-57-70. Eberhardt, A., 2015. Why the discriminatory application of criteria in selective distribution systems is block exempted under Regulation 330/2010.European Competition Journal,11(1), pp.168-192. Korah, V., 2014. The EU Law of Competition, 3rd edn, by Jonathan Faull Ali Nikpay.(Oxford University Press, 2014).World Competition,37(3), pp.391-392. Macnab, A. ed., 2013.European Community law of competition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nagy, C., 2013. Resale price fixing after the revision of the EU vertical regimea comparative perspective.Acta Juridica Hungarica,54(4), pp.349-366. Nurski, L. and Verboven, F., 2016. Exclusive dealing as a barrier to entry? Evidence from automobiles*.The Review of Economic Studies, p.rdw002. Nyman-Metcalf, K., Dutt, P.K. and Chochia, A., 2014. The Freedom to Conduct Business and the Right to Property: The EU Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation and the Relationship Between Intellectual Property and Competition Law. InProtecting Human Rights in the EU(pp. 37-70). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. von der Fehr, N.H. and Harbord, D., 2014. The Law and Economics of Vertical Restraints An Overview,(pp. 33-41).