{"title":"Vertical Arrangements","authors":"R. Ahdar","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198855606.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Then law governing vertical arrangements is a comparatively undeveloped area in NZ competition law. With only resale price maintenance (RPM) expressly prohibited by the Act, it has fallen to the general prohibitions on anticompetitive arrangements and monopolization to address traditional antitrust mischiefs such as exclusive dealing and tying. The leading case on exclusive dealing was heavily influenced by Chicagoan thinking to the degree that the courts gave the green light to durable distribution arrangements that countenanced foreclosure on a large scale and were plainly anti-competitive. However, the few cases on tying have been more fruitful insofar as remedies have been granted to rectify blatant leveraging by dominant firms into related markets. A period of active enforcement of RPM by the Commerce Commission marked the first decade, but the swathe of prosecutions dried up as the twenty-first century began.","PeriodicalId":254374,"journal":{"name":"The Evolution of Competition Law in New Zealand","volume":"100 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Evolution of Competition Law in New Zealand","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198855606.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Then law governing vertical arrangements is a comparatively undeveloped area in NZ competition law. With only resale price maintenance (RPM) expressly prohibited by the Act, it has fallen to the general prohibitions on anticompetitive arrangements and monopolization to address traditional antitrust mischiefs such as exclusive dealing and tying. The leading case on exclusive dealing was heavily influenced by Chicagoan thinking to the degree that the courts gave the green light to durable distribution arrangements that countenanced foreclosure on a large scale and were plainly anti-competitive. However, the few cases on tying have been more fruitful insofar as remedies have been granted to rectify blatant leveraging by dominant firms into related markets. A period of active enforcement of RPM by the Commerce Commission marked the first decade, but the swathe of prosecutions dried up as the twenty-first century began.