Comparative Law Researches

Comparative Law Researches

Conditions for Prohibiting Discriminatory Transactions (Comparative studying the American, European Union and Iranian Law)

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
Elham Sadat Sheikholeslam Noori 1
Mohammadbagher Parsapour 2
Pejman Mohammadi 3
1 Ph. D. Student in Privet Law, Faculty of Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor in Private Law, Faculty of Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 Professor in Private Law, Faculty of Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Discriminatory transactions are contracts in which there is unjustified discrimination in one of them despite the fact that the circumstances are the same. In legal systems, special conditions for prohibition have been included. Some of these conditions are related to the contract itself; Such as the similarity of transactions and the condition of applying restrictions, which exist only in the United States. Some of these conditions are related to the parties to the contract, such as the exclusive power of the economic enterprise or the dominant economic situation. Some conditions are competitive legal conditions. Competitive conditions include disruption of competition, competitive damage and discrimination between competing buyers. The condition of entering damage to the interstate market in the United States and to the trade between the member countries, is foreseen in the European Union law; But it has not been relevant in Iran's legal system. Therefore, in all three legal systems, special conditions for prohibition have been stated. In America, these restrictions are more and most transactions are considered legal. The most important difference between the European Union and Iran is that, in the European Union, only those transactions which are stated by the economic enterprise in a dominant position are prohibited. This should be emphasized in Iranian law as well. Also, based on the appearance of Iranian law, the conditions for prohibiting unilateral discriminatory transactions are stricter than multilateral discriminatory transactions. Finally, based on the examination of the conditions of prohibition, legal articles have been proposed to amend the law.
Keywords
Abuse of Dominant Position
Conditions for Prohibition
Discriminatory Pricing
Discriminatory Transactions

Subjects

14- Border, Douglas. (2010), U.S Antitrust Law and Enforcement: A Practice Introduction, USA, Oxford University Pres.
15- Jones, Alison. Sufrin, Brenda. (2019), EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, UK, Oxford University Press.
16- Kamerling, Alexandra. Osman, Christopher. (2004). Restrictive Covenants under Common and Competition, UK, Sweet and Maxwell.
17- Klotz, Thomas. (2008). Monopoly Power: Use, Proof and Relationship to Anticompetitive Effects. US, US FTC.
18- Mann, Richard. Roberts, Barry. (2012), Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment, Cengage learning, USA, Cengage Learning.
Articles:
19- Beard, T.R, Kaseman, d.L, Stern, M.L. (2008), price Discrimination and Secondary-Line Competitive Injury: The Law Versus the Economics. The Antitrust Bulletin, 53. PP. 75-93.
20- Botta, Marco. Wiedemann, Klaus. (2018), EU Competition Law Enforcement vis-à-vis Exploitative Conducts in the Data Economy Exploring the Terra Incognita. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper ,No. 18-08. PP. 1-90.
21- Dieny, E. (2006). The CFI Reaffirms the Absence of a Rule of Reason in EC Competition Law. International Business Law Journal, No. 5.
22- Downey, Alicia. (2008). An Overview of Price Discrimination Law in the United States, the Price Discrimination Committee of the ABA, Section of Antitrust Law,
23- Edwards, Matthew. (2006). Price and Prejudice: The Case Against Consumer Equality in the Information Age. Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 10, PP. 559- 596.
24- Geradin, Damien. Petit, Nicolas. (2005). Price Discrimination Under Ec Competition Law: Another Antitrust Theory in Search of Limiting Principles. The global Competition Law Center Working Papers Series No. 07/05. PP. 479- 531.
25- Gifford,. Daniel. Kudrle, Robert. (2010). The Law and Economics of Price Discrimination in Modern Economies: Time for Reconciliation?. University of California, Vol. 43. PP. 1235- 1293.
26- Hansen, Hugh. (1983). Robinson Patman Law: A Review and Analysis. Fordham Law Review. V. 51. PP. 1113- 1218.
27- Kim, Karen. (2021). Amazon Induced Price Discrimination under the Robinson Patman Act. Colombia Law School, No. 6, PP. 85-160.
28- Lundborg, Martin. (2010). Discrimination and Price Discrimination in the Telecommunications Regulation of NGA Networks, 21 European Regional ITS Conference, Copenhagen, No. 23. PP. 1-18.
29- Machlup, Fritz. (1955). Characteristics and Types of Price Discrimination. Princeton University Press. PP. 397-440.
Thesis:
30- Laulainen, Merikukka. (2018). A Comparative Analysis of EU and US Approaches to Abuse of Market Dominance- Reviewing EU Antitrust Investigations against Foreign Undertaking. Bachelor Thesis, Tallinn university of Technology.
Documents:
31- COMMISSION NOTICE Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (2004/C 101/07)(Text with EEA relevance
32- Commission Decision of 20 July 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case IV/36.888 - 1998 Football World Cup)
33- DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS COMPETITION COMMITTEE ROUNDTABLE ON "PRICE DISCRIMINATION" --Note by the United States-- 29-30 November 2016.
34- DG Competition Discussion paper on the Application of Article 82 of the Treaty to Exclusionary Abuse, 2005,
35- European Commission. Antitrust Procedures in Abuse of Dominance (Article 102 TFEU cases). Accessible: ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures-102-en-html,25.4.2018.
36- Federal Trade Commission. Guide to Antitrust Laws: Antitrust Laws. Accessible: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws, 21.1.2018.
Cases:
37- FTC v. Morton Salt, 334 U.S. 37, 49 (1948), Federal Trade Commission.
38- Case Texaco Inc, Petitioner v. Ricky HASBROUCK, dba Ricks Texaco, et al. C2048-87 (1990), US Supreme Court.
39- Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc., (3d Cir. 1998), 159 F.3d129, 142. United States Court of Appeals.
40- Case McCormick and Company, Inc. C-3939. (2000), Federal Trade Commission.
41- Case Volvo Trucks North America, Inc., Petitioner v. Reeder- Simco GMC, Inc. (2000). No. 04-905, US Supreme Court.
42- J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 451 U.S. 557, 562–66, 564–65 n.4 (1981). US Supreme Court.
43- United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 424, (1945). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
44- United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission of the European Communities. 27/76, (1978), Commission of the European Communities.
45- Case Post Danmark. V European Commission. (2012). C-209/10. Commission of the European Communities.
46- Case MEO v. GDA. (2018). C-525/16, Court of Justice of the European :union:.
47- Case Intel Crop. Inc. v European Commission. (2017). C-413/14. Commission of the European Communities.