AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Edited Legal Collections Data

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Edited Legal Collections Data >> 2010 >> [2010] ELECD 271

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Harrison, Jeffrey L. --- "The Law of Group Boycotts and Related Economic Considerations" [2010] ELECD 271; in Hylton, N. Keith (ed), "Antitrust Law and Economics" (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010)

Book Title: Antitrust Law and Economics

Editor(s): Hylton, N. Keith

Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing

ISBN (hard cover): 9781847207319

Section: Chapter 3

Section Title: The Law of Group Boycotts and Related Economic Considerations

Author(s): Harrison, Jeffrey L.

Number of pages: 18

Extract:

3 The law of group boycotts and related
economic considerations
Jeffrey L. Harrison1


The terms `group boycott' and `refusal to deal' do not have precise defini-
tions. The meanings range from what is called a classic boycott ­ whereby
competitors join to deny other actual or potential competitors access
to upstream suppliers or downstream customers2 ­ to simple horizontal
agreements pertaining to terms of an exchange.3 In between are arrange-
ments among competitors to regulate some aspect of trade. For the most
part, horizontal agreements about terms of exchange are economically
indistinguishable from price fixing and are not considered here. For
example, one of the classic refusal to deal cases involved a horizontal
agreement to enter into contracts with arbitration clauses.4 In that type
of case, the agreement on terms is a risk allocation device that could be
substituted for by a price allowance.
For purposes of this chapter, whether labeled a group boycott or a refusal
to deal, the focus is on concerted activity that targets specific firms, suppli-
ers, or customers. `Concerted' denotes an agreement between or among
competitors and, thus, is reviewed under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.5
Much of the analysis of boycotts can be applied to single firm behavior as
well and, consequently, is examined under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.6
In general, the boycotts considered here have one of two relatively dis-
tinct goals. One is to regulate competition among participating firms. For
example, the organizers of a golf tournament ...


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ELECD/2010/271.html