In the event of termination or expiry of the distribution contract, the provisions established at the time of the constitution are at the heart of the concerns. Is the termination procedure clear, does it avoid any legal implications in cartel and abuse of dominance disputes? These issues can be dealt with in advance, provided, of course, that they are discussed at the beginning of the business relationship. Some have argued that exclusive trade can never have anti-competitive effects because it is contrary to the interests of buyers to help a seller acquire or maintain monopoly power. Implicitly, in this argument, there is the presumption that if buyers enter into exclusive agreements, it must be due to the fact that the agreements create efficiency gains. Buyers demand that the seller be fully compensated before entering into an agreement that will subject them to the future monopoly power. If the agreement is anti-competitive, the monopoly benefit to the seller will be less than the harm suffered by the victims and the so-called monopoly will not be able to fully compensate its potential victims. So they would never agree. (65) Exclusive distribution agreements may, in certain circumstances, be subject to EU and UK competition rules. John Schmidt and Zeno Frediani are addressing some of the key issues that food and beverage operators should keep in mind to prevent them from violating competition rules. Similarly, in 2005, the Third Circuit found, in the context of Dentsply, that Dentsply`s practice of refusing sale to distributors with artificial teeth from other manufacturers was contrary to Section 2 for illegally maintaining Dentsply`s monopoly power. (55) This practice has left Dentsply`s competitors behind with distribution methods that have resulted in “significantly higher transaction costs, increased credit loads and credit risks” (56), leaving “competing tooth sales below the critical level required for each rival to pose a real threat to Dentsply`s market share.” (57) The finding that Dentsply`s policy “excludes its competitors from access to distributors” (58) was found by the Tribunal that Dentsply`s reasons for effectiveness were “anticipated” and “did not excuse their exclusionary practices”. In particular, the Dentsply court has distinguished the allegations of several other courts that short-term exclusive trade contracts are presumed to be legitimate (60), in which it is stated that a policy of non-action by customers who also dominate a competitor “can realistically conclude the agreements. As effective as in written treatises. (61) The first question is whether the agreement could benefit from the exemption from small agreements in the Commission`s communication.

This de minimis communication applies to agreements that do not contain specific restrictions and exist between SMEs or that involve larger firms for which the parties` combined market shares do not exceed certain thresholds. If the de minimis communication is not accurate, the next step will be to determine the market share held by the supplier and buyer in the market of this product. If the supplier and buyer`s market share for the products covered by the agreement does not exceed 30%, the agreement could, under certain conditions, be automatically exempt from category exemptions under the category exemption regulation. If the party`s share exceeds 30%, the agreement should be reviewed individually to determine whether it could benefit from an exemption. An agreement is excluded when it contributes to the improvement of production or distribution, promotes technical or economic progress, allows consumers to take a fair share of the benefits that flow from it, does not impose restrictions that are not essential to achieving these objectives, and does not exclude competition. However, exclusive trade may also, in certain circumstances, be anti-competitive. For example, exclusive trade may allow a producer to monopolize efficient distribution services, preventing a