- Original Poster
- #1
We are in an industry that is subject to many, in our opinion, restrictive practices; preventing free and competitive trade. An example of which is the refusal of many suppliers to trade (open accounts) with any company that they feel may affect the turnover of their existing accounts within any given geographic area. These suppliers either do so under their own volition or through acceding to pressure applied to them by local competitors.
We are not sure, but believe that this activity to be unlawful, contravening either the Competition or Enterprise Acts. This is perhaps a battle for a later date, but any opinions that you may provide would be most welcome.
The main subject of this thread is to ask advice on the following:
One of our suppliers, a multi-national organisation, is requiring all of their existing customers to sign an agreement containing "approved dealer terms", in our opinion these are restrictive terms. The consequence for not signing up to the new terms would be cessation trade.
Although we understand the supplier's rationale behind such an agreement, we feel that we are unable to comply with them in principal; we would be giving up our rite to manage our business as we see fit. We believe some of the terms to be vague and therefore open to any interpretation that the supplier should wish to make. Others place constraints on our choice of retail market, specifically selling eBay or other similar vehicles. This agreement is reviewable annually by the supplier. Any breech of the terms would cause the termination of the approved dealer status, again cessation of trade.
Wording in the agreement refers to the company's "highly recognised reputation and brand image". We agree that they do in fact have just that, but feel that the changes in terms are a blatant attempt to maintain relatively high retail prices.
The dilemma we face therefore is do we compromise our business principles and comply with the new regime, or stand up for what we believe in and fight it out in court providing of course that we would have a case?
We thank you in anticipation of your help and advice.
We are not sure, but believe that this activity to be unlawful, contravening either the Competition or Enterprise Acts. This is perhaps a battle for a later date, but any opinions that you may provide would be most welcome.
The main subject of this thread is to ask advice on the following:
One of our suppliers, a multi-national organisation, is requiring all of their existing customers to sign an agreement containing "approved dealer terms", in our opinion these are restrictive terms. The consequence for not signing up to the new terms would be cessation trade.
Although we understand the supplier's rationale behind such an agreement, we feel that we are unable to comply with them in principal; we would be giving up our rite to manage our business as we see fit. We believe some of the terms to be vague and therefore open to any interpretation that the supplier should wish to make. Others place constraints on our choice of retail market, specifically selling eBay or other similar vehicles. This agreement is reviewable annually by the supplier. Any breech of the terms would cause the termination of the approved dealer status, again cessation of trade.
Wording in the agreement refers to the company's "highly recognised reputation and brand image". We agree that they do in fact have just that, but feel that the changes in terms are a blatant attempt to maintain relatively high retail prices.
The dilemma we face therefore is do we compromise our business principles and comply with the new regime, or stand up for what we believe in and fight it out in court providing of course that we would have a case?
We thank you in anticipation of your help and advice.
