A Belgian Court of appeal holds that a mere price-guideline does not constitute resale price maintenance as such (Frost / Evlier)

Description of the impugned case On 21 December 2005, Frost Invest NV (‘Frost') and Evlier BVBA (‘Evlier') entered into a ‘jaarovereenkomst 2006' (Annual Agreement of 2006) for the sale of the product ‘Evlierkruiden' by Evlier to Frost. Article 16 of this agreement laid down a minimum resale price for the product of EUR 1.80. When Frost asked Evlier for a discount (in support of a promotional action), Evlier refused and referred Frost to Article 16. However Frost ignored this and offered the goods for sale at EUR 1.53 instead of EUR 1.80. In reaction to this, Evlier told Frost it would no longer supply it with the product covered by the agreement. Type of competition analysis The Antwerp Court of Appeal (the ‘Court') was asked to examine the question of whether or not Article 16

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

Quotation

Evi E. Mattioli, A Belgian Court of appeal holds that a mere price-guideline does not constitute resale price maintenance as such (Frost / Evlier), 27 October 2008, e-Competitions October 2008, Art. N° 32298

Visites 732

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues