CME thought that these changes in contractual terms and pricing are unfair and the conditions which Coyote’ssubsidiary (HS) imposed were unacceptable. ACME tried to use alternative wood for some laminated woodenbeams.
It produced these alternative laminated wooden beams as samples for potential buyers; however, thelaminated alternatives did not have the structural integrity of those made from bur oak.Assume that, because of legal advice received on competition law issues, Coyote has decided not to proceed withits distributorship arrangement in each Member State as described earlier.
Coyote is now in discussions withMarie-Anne (MA).Marie-Anne owns a business in France supplying wood. MA regularly buys bur oak from Coyote.
Coyote isattempting to renegotiate the terms upon which it sells to MA so that they will require her to also buy all her supplies of elm and ash wood from Coyote in return for which they will discount all timber treatments, such asspecial glues and oils, used in the manufacture of timber wooden beams.
a.Explain why an EU Commission investigation may find Coyote is in breach of Article 102 TFEU.(15 marks)
b.Advise ACME whether the Commission has any grounds under Article 101 or 102 TFEU, or bothArticles, for challenging the conduct of HS or Coyote, or both of them.
Would your answer change if Coyote, instead of contracting with HS, establishes a subsidiary in Ireland to perform the samefunctions?(15 marks)
c.What EU remedies might ACME rely on in the national courts if it sues HS or Coyote, or both ofthem, for breaching Article 101 or 102 TFEU, or both Articles?(5 marks)
