Corporate law Brisbane

What are exclusive supply contracts?

HomePrivate: BlogCommercial lawWhat are exclusive supply contracts?

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

4–6 minutes

An exclusive supply contract (Exclusive Supply Contract), also known as Exclusive Dealing, occurs when one party trading with another imposes some form of restriction on the other’s freedom to choose with whom, in what, or where they deal.  Some examples of Exclusive Dealing may include:

  • the supplier being restricted to supplying the goods in a specific geographical area, or through a particular channel; or
  • restricting a purchaser from buying the same or similar goods from other suppliers.

This article outlines what an Exclusive Supply Contract or Exclusive Dealing is and when it may not be legal.

What is a supply contract?

A supply contract is a contract for the sale of goods from one party (Supplier) to another party (Purchaser).  Some everyday examples include a supplier providing:

  • vegetables to a grocery;
  • coffee beans to a café; or
  • books to a bookstore.

What exclusivity clauses may Purchasers request?

Purchasers may request several exclusivity clauses within a supply contract, the most common of which are an exclusive:

  • area clause; or
  • product clause.

An exclusive area clause restricts the Supplier to supplying the specific goods in question to the Purchaser exclusively in a given geographical area.  This type of clause is useful in situations where the Purchaser does not want local competitors to have access to the same goods.

An exclusive product clause is similar in nature to the exclusive area clause, but instead requires that the Supplier sell the product only to you.  This can often apply to online businesses who do not have a definitive geographical location.

What exclusivity clauses Suppliers may request

Some common examples of exclusivity clauses which Suppliers may request include various terms, including an exclusive:

  • dealing clause;
  • channel clause;
  • product clause;
  • pricing clauses; and/or
  • offers clauses.

An exclusive channel clause involves the Supplier restricting the purchases from selling through certain channels.  For example, the Supplier may not allow you to sell the goods online.  This can be useful in situations where the Supplier already sells their product online and does not wish to have competition in that market.

An exclusive product clause in this circumstance would involve the Supplier restricting the Purchaser from buying the same or similar goods from other Suppliers.  These clauses are useful where Suppliers do not wish to allow Purchasers to buy from their competitors in the future.

When is Exclusive Dealing illegal?

A blanket prohibition against Exclusive Dealing is provided for in section 47 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (Act).  That section prohibits corporations, in trade or commerce, from restricting, limiting or circumscribing[1] any dealings with goods and services.[2]  Further, Exclusive Dealing will only generally break the law where the conduct results in substantially lessening the competition in the relevant market.[3]

To assess whether an Exclusive Supply Contract would substantially lessen the competition, it must be considered whether:

  • there has been a real effect on the competition in the overall market for a particular product and its substitutes;
  • the refusal to supply would substantially restrict the availability of that type of product to consumers; or
  • consumers’ ability to buy a product and its substitutes are severely restricted because the business has imposed restrictions on the area as a condition of supply.

As a rule of thumb, the more exclusive the product and the more powerful the Supplier, the more likely it is that the level of competition will be substantially affected and that some pecuniary penalty will be imposed.[4]  The Court has power pursuant to section 76(1) of the Act to make orders imposing pecuniary penalties upon corporations illegally engaging in Exclusive Dealing.  Before making such orders, the Court will consider the following factors:[5]

  • the size and financial position of the contravening company;
  • whether the contravention was intentional;
  • the period over which the contravention extended;
  • whether the contravening conduct was systematic, deliberate or covert;
  • whether senior management were aware of or involved in the contravention;
  • whether the contravening company had a corporate culture conducive to compliance with the Act;
  • whether the company co-operated with the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission;
  • whether the contravener has engaged in similar conduct in the past; and
  • the effect on the functioning of the market and other economic effects of the conduct.

Takeaways

It is essential that both Suppliers and Purchasers alike carefully consider whether any exclusivity arrangements exist, and whether these arrangements have the potential to lessen competition substantially in the relevant market.

Links and further references

Related articles

Changes to monetary threshold for consumer contracts

Deal fatigue in commercial contracts

Tortious interference with contract – what must be proven?

Legislation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)

Cases

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Oakmoore Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1169

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Oakmoore Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 1170

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Oakmoore Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1472

 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Visa Inc [2015] FCA 1020

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Fila Sport Oceania Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 376

 Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1990] FCA 762

Further information about Exclusive Supply Contracts

If you need advice on Exclusive Supply Contracts, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

[1] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 47(13).

[2] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) ss 47(2) – (9).

[3] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 47(10).

[4] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Oakmoore Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1169, [81] referring to Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1990] FCA 762, [42]; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Oakmoore Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 1170, [16]; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Oakmoore Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1472, [74].

[5] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 76; Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1990] FCA 762; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Visa Inc [2015] FCA 1020, [80]-[82].


Related insights about Exclusive Supply Contracts

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…

    Read more …

  • Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing.  This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…

    Read more …

  • Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Modern awards and enterprise agreements set out the minimum terms and conditions of employment for most Australian workers performing different roles.  The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) provides a mechanism by which an employer and an individual employee may, by agreement, adjust the operation of certain terms in their Award to better suit theircircumstances. …

    Read more …

  • Coercive control and shareholder oppression

    Coercive control and shareholder oppression

    The Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld) came into effect on 18 March 2024, by adding chapter 29A to the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code).  This chapter establishes a separate offence of “coercive control’, which stems from domestic violence offences and involves the use of…

    Read more …

  • Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026

    Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026

    On 1 April 2026, the Australian Government introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and Australian Consumer Law (ACL).[1]  If passed, the reform will take effect on 1 July 2027.  The Bill’s amendments aim to protect consumers from manipulative…

    Read more …

  • Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Federal government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 (Cth) to provide tax incentives for investors in an eligible early stage innovation company (ESIC), including 20% up-front non-refundable tax offset and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption for all types of investors meeting criteria.

    Read more …

  • White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed.  Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who…

    Read more …

  • White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting is an Australian term meaning to sabotage, undermine, or destroy an organisation, project, or person from within.  White Anting in the workplace often involves the quiet, insidious undermining of a colleague or superior through gossip, withholding information, exclusion, or spreading doubt.  White Anting  has been recognised by psychologists as a psychosocial hazard and…

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend