Competition Act, 1998 (Act No. 89 of 1998)NoticesGuidelines on collaboration in the implementation of the South African Value Chain Sugarcane Master Plan to 20305. Legal Framework |
5.1 | The legal framework for assessing agreements on collaboration among competitors is found in section 4(1) of the Act. Section 4(1) of the Act states as follows: |
“4. | Restrictive horizontal practices prohibited |
(1) | An agreement between, or concerted practice by, firms, or a decision by an association of firms, is prohibited if it is between parties in a horizontal relationship and if – |
(a) | It has the effect of substantially preventing, or lessening, competition in a market, unless a party to the agreement, concerted practice, or decision can prove that any technological efficiency or other pro-competitive gain resulting from it outweighs that effect; or |
(b) | it involves any of the following restrictive horizontal practices: |
(i) | directly or indirectly fixing a purchase or selling price or any other trading condition; |
(ii) | dividing markets by allocating customers, suppliers, territories, or specific types of goods or services; or |
(iii) | collusive tendering.” |
5.2 | Section 4(1)(a) of the Act prohibits an agreement between competitors that has the effect of substantially preventing or lessening competition, unless from the information exchanged. |
5.3 | Section 4(1)(b) of the Act outright prohibits an agreement that involves: |
5.3.1. | the direct or indirect fixing of a purchase or selling price or any other trading condition; |
5.3.2. | the dividing of markets by allocating customers, suppliers, territories, or specific types of goods or services; and |
5.3.3. | collusive tendering. |
5.4 | The main difference between section 4(1)(a) and section 4(1)(b) is the opportunity given to parties in terms of section 4(1)(a) to put up an efficiency justification. |
5.5 | Section 4(1)(b) provides for an outright prohibition when an agreement results in the conduct listed under section 4(1)(b) and there is no opportunity for raising efficiency, pro-competitive or technological gains as a defence to the alleged anti-competitive conduct. |