11.07.2015 Views

2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in <strong>2011</strong>(cont…)Cases Resolved in <strong>2011</strong>Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD2010<strong>2011</strong>/02/04/BC-FTD/30<strong>2011</strong>/02/08/BC-FTD/31<strong>2011</strong>/02/09/BC-FTD/32Complaint by UagainstIndividuals V &WCompany E vs.Company FCompany G vs.Company HOn 04-02-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from U againstIndividuals V & W, regarding the use of Mr. X’s name to run a business ofspare parts and sale of laptops. Once the complaint was lodged, FCCcontacted Mr. U and requested for a meeting to discuss the issue. <strong>The</strong><strong>Commission</strong> was informed that the complaint was lodged by his wife andthat he owns the spare parts business and does not want to proceed anyfurther. <strong>The</strong> Business and TIN registration of the company was provided bythe complainant on 15-02-11 as evidence and the complaint was withdrawn.On 08-02-10, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Company E,regarding the misuse of market power by Company F. <strong>The</strong> respondentinformed the Complainant to close their coffee shop as it was in directcompetition with the respondent’s business and failure to do so wouldrender the respondent to cease its dealings with Company E. <strong>The</strong><strong>Commission</strong> after its investigation discovered that the respondent did notbreach the provisions of CCD 2010. <strong>The</strong> above was conveyed tocomplainant and the case was closed.On 09-02-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Company Gagainst Company H in regards to the refusal of Company H to supplybatteries directly to Company G for retailing in the market. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Commission</strong>was informed that Company H directed Company G to buy batteries fromtheir specific agent who sells the batteries at a very high price. Once thecomplaint was lodged, FCC formally wrote to Company H informing them ofthe issue and seeking a response. A response was received; informing FCCthat Company H is willing to consider a business relationship with CompanyG and invited Company G to submit a submission. <strong>The</strong> above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.ProvisionsBreachedNo Breach of the <strong>Commerce</strong><strong>Commission</strong> Decree 2010Restrictive TradePracticesRestrictive TradePracticesSections 66Sections 66Page23of236

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!