Exclusive agreement: Difference between revisions
From CEOpedia | Management online
m (Infobox5 upgrade) |
m (Text cleaning) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<ref> United States. Federal Communications Commission, (1953) </ref>. Parties are tied up with some special contract which defines level of exclusiveness. Such contract is always time-specific. Sometimes exclusive agreement is used to gain or maintain [[market]] power<ref> Jacobson J. M., (2006), p. 405 </ref>. It is also special form of [[competition]], when companies are inviting for example manufactures to give the best prices and win this ''competition-for-the-contract'' <ref> Jacobson J. M., (2003), p. 350 </ref>. | <ref> United States. Federal Communications Commission, (1953) </ref>. Parties are tied up with some special contract which defines level of exclusiveness. Such contract is always time-specific. Sometimes exclusive agreement is used to gain or maintain [[market]] power<ref> Jacobson J. M., (2006), p. 405 </ref>. It is also special form of [[competition]], when companies are inviting for example manufactures to give the best prices and win this ''competition-for-the-contract'' <ref> Jacobson J. M., (2003), p. 350 </ref>. | ||
== Short-term exclusive agreements == | ==Short-term exclusive agreements== | ||
Jacobson J. M. writes that some courts suggested that short-term exclusive agreements '''cannot be unlawful'''. Despite concurrence is excluded, they may still bid and [[work]] on input. It is suggested that in one [[company]] already has a [[monopoly]] on market and gains even more exclusive agreements, unnecessary agreements or the unnecessary part of the agreements should be illegal <<ref> Jacobson J. M., (2006), p. 405 - 410 </ref>. | Jacobson J. M. writes that some courts suggested that short-term exclusive agreements '''cannot be unlawful'''. Despite concurrence is excluded, they may still bid and [[work]] on input. It is suggested that in one [[company]] already has a [[monopoly]] on market and gains even more exclusive agreements, unnecessary agreements or the unnecessary part of the agreements should be illegal <<ref> Jacobson J. M., (2006), p. 405-410 </ref>. | ||
== Long-term exclusive agreement == | ==Long-term exclusive agreement== | ||
In document ''Code of Federal Regulations: 2000. Office of the Federal Register'' there is written that long-term exclusive agreement might be generally approved from legal perspective, but duration of such agreements cannot be longer than '''five years'''. When these condition is met, there have to exist some '''special circumstances'''. To prove them, detailed documents should be provided. Firstly, these special circumstances should be shared for example there is requirement to improve capital for soma facility. Secondly, copy or a draft of final leasing contract should be shared. In general, exclusive agreement is allowed if<ref> U.S. General Services Administration, (2003), p. 196 </ref>: | In document ''Code of Federal Regulations: 2000. Office of the Federal Register'' there is written that long-term exclusive agreement might be generally approved from legal perspective, but duration of such agreements cannot be longer than '''five years'''. When these condition is met, there have to exist some '''special circumstances'''. To prove them, detailed documents should be provided. Firstly, these special circumstances should be shared for example there is requirement to improve capital for soma facility. Secondly, copy or a draft of final leasing contract should be shared. In general, exclusive agreement is allowed if<ref> U.S. General Services Administration, (2003), p. 196 </ref>: | ||
# There are special '''local circumstances on the market''', that make is important to create long-term exclusive agreement, | # There are special '''local circumstances on the market''', that make is important to create long-term exclusive agreement, | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
# There are followed special '''procedures'''. | # There are followed special '''procedures'''. | ||
== Network of exclusive agreements == | ==Network of exclusive agreements== | ||
Jiménez T. and others describe situation of whole networking of exclusive agreements between [[Internet]] [[Service]] Providers (called ISPs) and Content Providers (called CPs). Such situation is called '''vertical monopoly''' in the literature. Authors assume that between Internet Service Providers and Content Providers are pairs of exclusive agreements which might be [[strategy]] (kind of ''market game'') to gain together more market share and higher benefits<ref> Jiménez T., Hayel Y., Altman E., (2012), p. 212 - 213 </ref>. | Jiménez T. and others describe situation of whole networking of exclusive agreements between [[Internet]] [[Service]] Providers (called ISPs) and Content Providers (called CPs). Such situation is called '''vertical monopoly''' in the literature. Authors assume that between Internet Service Providers and Content Providers are pairs of exclusive agreements which might be [[strategy]] (kind of ''market game'') to gain together more market share and higher benefits<ref> Jiménez T., Hayel Y., Altman E., (2012), p. 212-213 </ref>. | ||
== Example of exclusive agreement == | ==Example of exclusive agreement== | ||
Every one or two years companies such as General Motors, Ford and Chrysler invite manufacturers of tires to bid for exclusive rights so that their tires will be used by manufacturers - General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. The consequences are, the market is hard to enter (especially in mid-year) are prices offered by tires manufacturers are each year going down which on the other hand, brings benefit to final customers<ref> Jacobson J. M., (2003), p. 350 </ref>. | Every one or two years companies such as General Motors, Ford and Chrysler invite manufacturers of tires to bid for exclusive rights so that their tires will be used by manufacturers - General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. The consequences are, the market is hard to enter (especially in mid-year) are prices offered by tires manufacturers are each year going down which on the other hand, brings benefit to final customers<ref> Jacobson J. M., (2003), p. 350 </ref>. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
* Bergson I., (2015), [https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/LAW161/bergson2015.pdf ''The death of the torpedo action? The practical operation of the Recast's reforms to enhance the protection for exclusive jurisdiction agreements within the European Union''] in "Journal of Private International Law, 11:1" | * Bergson I., (2015), [https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/LAW161/bergson2015.pdf ''The death of the torpedo action? The practical operation of the Recast's reforms to enhance the protection for exclusive jurisdiction agreements within the European Union''] in "Journal of Private International Law, 11:1" | ||
* Jacobson J. M., (2006), [https://www.wilmerhale.com/-/media/a4dfeca2e3164c1da9367e9a55ed3cff.pdf | * Jacobson J. M., (2006), [https://www.wilmerhale.com/-/media/a4dfeca2e3164c1da9367e9a55ed3cff.pdf '' Exclusive Dealing Agreements and Other Exclusionary Conduct - Are There Unifying Principles? ''] in "73 Antitrust L.J. 375" | ||
* Jacobson J. M., (2003), [https://www.wsgr.com/publications/pdfsearch/jacobson_foreclosure.pdf | * Jacobson J. M., (2003), [https://www.wsgr.com/publications/pdfsearch/jacobson_foreclosure.pdf ''Exclusive Dealing, Foreclosure, and Consumer Harm ''] in "70 Antitrust L.J. 311" | ||
* Jiménez T., Hayel Y., Altman E., (2012), [https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-30054-7_17.pdf, ''Competition in Access to Content''] in Bestak R., Kencl L., Li L.E., Widmer J., Yin H. "Networking 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7290", Springer, Berlin | * Jiménez T., Hayel Y., Altman E., (2012), [https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-30054-7_17.pdf, ''Competition in Access to Content''] in Bestak R., Kencl L., Li L.E., Widmer J., Yin H. "Networking 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7290", Springer, Berlin | ||
* United States. Federal Communications Commission, (1953), ''Federal Communications Commission Reports: Decisions, Reports, and Orders of the Federal Communications Commission of the United States, Volume 43, Part 2'', U.S. [[Government]] Printing Office | * United States. Federal Communications Commission, (1953), ''Federal Communications Commission Reports: Decisions, Reports, and Orders of the Federal Communications Commission of the United States, Volume 43, Part 2'', U.S. [[Government]] Printing Office | ||
* U.S. General Services Administration, (2003), ''Code of Federal Regulations: 2000. Office of the Federal Register'', U.S. General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Service, Office of the Federal Register, | * U.S. General Services Administration, (2003), ''Code of Federal Regulations: 2000. Office of the Federal Register'', U.S. General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Service, Office of the Federal Register, | ||
[[Category:Law]] | [[Category:Law]] | ||
{{a|Anna Bodura}} | {{a|Anna Bodura}} | ||
Latest revision as of 21:07, 17 November 2023
Exclusive agreement is the agreement of purchase the exclusive right [1]. Parties are tied up with some special contract which defines level of exclusiveness. Such contract is always time-specific. Sometimes exclusive agreement is used to gain or maintain market power[2]. It is also special form of competition, when companies are inviting for example manufactures to give the best prices and win this competition-for-the-contract [3].
Short-term exclusive agreements
Jacobson J. M. writes that some courts suggested that short-term exclusive agreements cannot be unlawful. Despite concurrence is excluded, they may still bid and work on input. It is suggested that in one company already has a monopoly on market and gains even more exclusive agreements, unnecessary agreements or the unnecessary part of the agreements should be illegal <[4].
Long-term exclusive agreement
In document Code of Federal Regulations: 2000. Office of the Federal Register there is written that long-term exclusive agreement might be generally approved from legal perspective, but duration of such agreements cannot be longer than five years. When these condition is met, there have to exist some special circumstances. To prove them, detailed documents should be provided. Firstly, these special circumstances should be shared for example there is requirement to improve capital for soma facility. Secondly, copy or a draft of final leasing contract should be shared. In general, exclusive agreement is allowed if[5]:
- There are special local circumstances on the market, that make is important to create long-term exclusive agreement,
- Regional civil officer approves the plan of long-term exclusive agreement,
- There are followed special procedures.
Network of exclusive agreements
Jiménez T. and others describe situation of whole networking of exclusive agreements between Internet Service Providers (called ISPs) and Content Providers (called CPs). Such situation is called vertical monopoly in the literature. Authors assume that between Internet Service Providers and Content Providers are pairs of exclusive agreements which might be strategy (kind of market game) to gain together more market share and higher benefits[6].
Example of exclusive agreement
Every one or two years companies such as General Motors, Ford and Chrysler invite manufacturers of tires to bid for exclusive rights so that their tires will be used by manufacturers - General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. The consequences are, the market is hard to enter (especially in mid-year) are prices offered by tires manufacturers are each year going down which on the other hand, brings benefit to final customers[7].
Footnotes
- ↑ United States. Federal Communications Commission, (1953)
- ↑ Jacobson J. M., (2006), p. 405
- ↑ Jacobson J. M., (2003), p. 350
- ↑ Jacobson J. M., (2006), p. 405-410
- ↑ U.S. General Services Administration, (2003), p. 196
- ↑ Jiménez T., Hayel Y., Altman E., (2012), p. 212-213
- ↑ Jacobson J. M., (2003), p. 350
| Exclusive agreement — recommended articles |
| Authorization to sell — Conditions of sale — Franchise — Executed agreement — Commercial agent — Sole distributor — Lease Extension — Incontestability clause — Sole agent |
References
- Bergson I., (2015), The death of the torpedo action? The practical operation of the Recast's reforms to enhance the protection for exclusive jurisdiction agreements within the European Union in "Journal of Private International Law, 11:1"
- Jacobson J. M., (2006), Exclusive Dealing Agreements and Other Exclusionary Conduct - Are There Unifying Principles? in "73 Antitrust L.J. 375"
- Jacobson J. M., (2003), Exclusive Dealing, Foreclosure, and Consumer Harm in "70 Antitrust L.J. 311"
- Jiménez T., Hayel Y., Altman E., (2012), Competition in Access to Content in Bestak R., Kencl L., Li L.E., Widmer J., Yin H. "Networking 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7290", Springer, Berlin
- United States. Federal Communications Commission, (1953), Federal Communications Commission Reports: Decisions, Reports, and Orders of the Federal Communications Commission of the United States, Volume 43, Part 2, U.S. Government Printing Office
- U.S. General Services Administration, (2003), Code of Federal Regulations: 2000. Office of the Federal Register, U.S. General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Service, Office of the Federal Register,
Author: Anna Bodura
