Competition law has different forms of laws according to the causes of concern it has in various countries. The first aspect of its function is to protect individuals, consumers, against the power of monopolies or different corporations, and against agreements on various levels of production and distribution. The second aspect is to disperse power and redistribute wealth, that is, protect smaller firms from the larger ones. The latter view, upheld in the United States until the 1950s, has been criticized by the so-called 'Chicago School' economic experts who deemed competition law should first and foremost increase consumer welfare without impeding an efficient allocation of resources. Besides, the trend reduced the stringency of ant-itrust laws, which was accompanied by the deregulation process. 1890 and 1948 are respectively marked in the United States and in the United Kingdom as the starting points for the creation of statutes and institutions to protect consumers, and as early as the 13th century, common law courts gave decisions which were landmarks for the restraint of the trade doctrine in both countries, where, for many years the 'buyer beware' principle was applied. Competition law in the United States shall be dealt with first, since this country initiated the process of legislation to ensure fair trading. First the American Competition law will be presented and then the English Competition law will be presented to end the Anti-trust laws in the European Union.
[...] Since the enactment of the Sherman Act, other laws have been enacted to supplement the Sherman Act, including the Federal trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act (1914). With some revisions, these laws still are in effect today. They have the same basic objective: making sure there are strong economic incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up. Indeed, when a consumer decide to purchase a product or a service car, a new refrigerator, or prescription drugs, for example), the goal of the antitrust laws is to make sure their choices are not restricted unreasonably. [...]
[...] This reform began in 1989 with the Competition Act 1998 which was adopted in November et that entered into force in March Competent authorities The current competent authorities to supervise the respect of the competition regulations are: - The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and its director: it is the major organ for supervising the market and their powers has been increased with the Competition Act 1998. They have quite the same powers in England that the European Commission in EU for supervision. They register all the operations concerned, they supervise the functioning of the market, they can initiate any investigation on any practice likely to not respect the competition regulations enforceable. They can also launch any judicial action if need be. Finally, they can take urgent measures and some sanctions. - The Competition Commission has power on monopolies and integrations. [...]
[...] ENGLISH LAW As in other UE countries, the competition regulation is now based on national regulations and on European regulations. The competitive process in the United Kingdom is characterized by the sanction of restraint of trade practice, as well as by other common law principles, such as economic torts by which the injured plaintiff may recover damages from the defendant. Passing off, conspiracy leading to willful denigration of goods, breach of contract inducement on the part of a third party, are types of liability connected with unfair competition History of the English competition regulation After World War II there were many instances of restrictive trade as well as anticompetitive practices in many sectors of British Industry. [...]
[...] In 1980, the Competition Act gave the Director General power to investigate anti-competitive practices which are also dealt with by Article 86 of the Rome Treaty. Both the Fair Trading Act and the Competition Act will be reformed, along the lines of Article 85 and Article 86 of the Rome Treaty, as announced by the Department of Trade and Industry. Beside the Restrictive Practices Court, the Director General of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the High Court of Justice also plays an important role in the protection of fair trading: it hears litigations about unreasonable contracts or contracts against public interest, as well as about agreements which are void under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 or illegal under Article 85 and Article 86 of the Rome Treaty. [...]
[...] But if the monopoly is the result of merger of another operation, it is illegal. For example, if an airline corporation, for no other reason than to protect its market position, makes sure that no other airlines corporation can fly a particular route, the airline corporation will be able to raise prices well beyond competitive levels. A manufacturer that acquires all its competitors might be able to do the same thing. In theses cases, the corporations would have violated the antitrust prohibition on monopolizing a market. [...]
Lecture en ligneet sans publicité !
Contenu vérifiépar notre comité de lecture