CRAM and Rheinzink v Commission [1984] ECr 1679
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:12:45 UTC
Two companies, French and German. Supplied zinc products to a Belgian company.
Under terms of contract Belgian company could only use products for export, not resell products in common market.
However, the Belgian company started selling products in Germany, undercutting prices of German company. At that moment, both suppliers, German and French stopped delivering supplies.
Court: there was perfectly rational reason of parallel behaviour.
Held
If rational explanation for parallel behavior, then it's okay.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Bayer AG v Commission
Bayer made and marketed medical drug intended to treat heart disease. As result of differences between national health authorities of MS, prices of these drugs were different across EU, lower in Fran...
C-267-8/91 Keck and Mithouard
Keck and Mithouard had been selling products at a loss (loss leaders) contrary to French law. They claimed that the French law infringed Article 28 (quantitative restrictions and equivalent measures...
Varec v Belgium
Claimant was company involved in tender procedure for building of tank tracks; however lost to a rival firm. Claimant challenged decision, and during hearing demanded disclosure of rival company’s te...
C-188/92 TWD Textilwerke
Commission decided that aid given by German government to a company was incompatible with free market, and the aid therefore had to be paid. The decision was addressed to German government, who told...
Consten v Grundig
1957 Grundig entered into contract with Consten, French undertaking meant to be sole representative of Grundig in France for sale of radios, TV, etc. This was a vertical agreement. UNEF bought Grundi...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.