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:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
[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
-
What are exclusive supply contracts?
The Court must consider whether the applicant has no other effective remedy, and if the information is sought for criminal proceedings, that there is a reasonable potential it will lead to conviction.
-
Shareholder oppression – a taxonomy of corporate wrongs
This article examines the concept of shareholder oppression and provides examples of when the Court has found oppressive conduct, as well as when it has not. It also outlines the remedies the Court prefers when faced with oppressive conduct.
-
Changes for casual employment – employer’s responsibilites
The Fair Work Amendment Act 2021 (Cth) has changed the landscape of employment for casual employees. Employers need to be aware of the amended definition of casual employees, the “casual conversion” option and the requirement to provide a Casual Employment Information Statement (CEIS).
-
The legal requirements of crowdfunding in business
Mareva Orders are a tool to protect the proper administration of justice and prevent an abuse of Court processes. The Court can restrain a defendant from disposing of their assets, ensuring the plaintiff has an effective remedy.
-
Electronic signing of documents no longer allowed for companies
The ability for companies to execute documents electronically (e-signing) is set to expire, but the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 could extend it. Find out how this could affect businesses and what the Senate’s decision could mean.
-
Company wound up under s461K for failing to achieve its objectives?
The NSW Supreme Court case of Gearhouse provides insight into the Court’s power to wind up a company under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). A combination of circumstances, including deadlock between shareholders, loss of confidence in management and an expired agreement, can lead to winding up.
-
Director resignations – effects from 18 February 2021
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020 (Phoenixing Act) introduced major changes to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act), with implications for directors. Learn more about the timeline for director resignations and the potential liabilities of directors under the new law.
-
Explaining Australia’s Media Bargaining Code
The News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC) is quickly moving through Parliament and looks likely to become law. It requires digital platforms, such as Facebook and Google, to negotiate remuneration with News Companies for providing their media services. Non-compliance could result in hefty civil penalties.
-
Shareholder oppression – the early warning signs
This article explores the legal framework of shareholder oppression and identifies early warning signs to look out for when starting a new venture, such as entity type, relationship with advisors, exclusion from management, access to info and non-flexible negotiation.
