This paper demonstrates that the Most-Favoured-Customer (MFC) clause identified in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) Report on Foreign Package Holidays behaves not like an MFC but rather as if it was a variant of a so far unstudied price matching guarantee. This provides a clearer explanation than that by the MMC of why the guarantee is not in the public interest. The subsequent Court of Appeal decision focused attention on whether or not the MFC came with matching funding. It correctly identified that this made a difference, but was wrong in claiming that with matching funding the MFC would benefit consumers. As a result, the latest Foreign Package Holidays Order still does not provide the necessary prohibition of MFC clauses.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia in its series Working Papers with number
05-8.
Find related papers by JEL classification: K12 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Contract Law K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices L42 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Vertical Restraints; Resale Price Maintenance; Quantity Discounts L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Recreation; Tourism
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)