Question Description
The ideal market is the one in which various market participants are independent and act as competitive restraints on each other. This economic liberty of market participants is sine qua non for preserving free and unfettered competition in any market. Sometimes the market participants with an objective to make more money instead of competing with each other on merits may enter into agreements to restrict competition. The words of Adam Smith that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices” are still applicable and to some extent true even today. Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the Act) seeks to prohibit such agreements.Section 3(1) of the Act inter alia prohibits an agreement between an enterprise and a person causing or is likely to cause an appreciable effect on competition within India. As the definition of person under the Act includes an individual, it leads to possible interpretation that consumers can be a party to anti-competitive agreements. This proposition contradicts the whole philosophy of competition law behind prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, but still the Act nowhere negates this proposition on the other hand seems to support it.If this proposition is answered in affirmative, it may have multi-dimensional adverse implications on contractual relations. For instance, a consumer will be able to avoid a contract if subsequently such contract is proved to be anti-competitive. This is not something which the Competition Commission doesn't have the power to do, in fact the Commission in the case of Belarie Owners Association v. DLF Ltd. & HUDA has directed DLF to modify unfair conditions in a properly entered contract. However, the rationale behind this decision was that by imposing such unfair terms the DLF has abused its Dominance and not on the ground of such agreement being anti-competitive.The issue as to whether consumers can be party to anti-competitive agreements was raised before Competition Commission in the case of Yashoda Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. v. India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. (IFSL). The Commission held that for application of Section 3 there must be two or more enterprises and there must be an agreement between them. While adjudging the same issue the Gujarat High Court in case of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ans. v. Union of India has observed that the Consumers have no role to play in anti-competitive agreements. Thus, after these judicial pronouncements it is well established that a consumer can’t be party to any anti competitive agreement as prohibited under Section 3 of the Act.Q. Which of the following best describes the Anti-Competitive Agreement?a)An agreement between an enterprise and a person causing appreciable effect on competition within India.b)The agreement which lets consumers be a contracting party with an enterprise. unchecked.c)Agreement which prohibits monopoly.d)All the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The ideal market is the one in which various market participants are independent and act as competitive restraints on each other. This economic liberty of market participants is sine qua non for preserving free and unfettered competition in any market. Sometimes the market participants with an objective to make more money instead of competing with each other on merits may enter into agreements to restrict competition. The words of Adam Smith that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices” are still applicable and to some extent true even today. Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the Act) seeks to prohibit such agreements.Section 3(1) of the Act inter alia prohibits an agreement between an enterprise and a person causing or is likely to cause an appreciable effect on competition within India. As the definition of person under the Act includes an individual, it leads to possible interpretation that consumers can be a party to anti-competitive agreements. This proposition contradicts the whole philosophy of competition law behind prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, but still the Act nowhere negates this proposition on the other hand seems to support it.If this proposition is answered in affirmative, it may have multi-dimensional adverse implications on contractual relations. For instance, a consumer will be able to avoid a contract if subsequently such contract is proved to be anti-competitive. This is not something which the Competition Commission doesn't have the power to do, in fact the Commission in the case of Belarie Owners Association v. DLF Ltd. & HUDA has directed DLF to modify unfair conditions in a properly entered contract. However, the rationale behind this decision was that by imposing such unfair terms the DLF has abused its Dominance and not on the ground of such agreement being anti-competitive.The issue as to whether consumers can be party to anti-competitive agreements was raised before Competition Commission in the case of Yashoda Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. v. India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. (IFSL). The Commission held that for application of Section 3 there must be two or more enterprises and there must be an agreement between them. While adjudging the same issue the Gujarat High Court in case of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ans. v. Union of India has observed that the Consumers have no role to play in anti-competitive agreements. Thus, after these judicial pronouncements it is well established that a consumer can’t be party to any anti competitive agreement as prohibited under Section 3 of the Act.Q. Which of the following best describes the Anti-Competitive Agreement?a)An agreement between an enterprise and a person causing appreciable effect on competition within India.b)The agreement which lets consumers be a contracting party with an enterprise. unchecked.c)Agreement which prohibits monopoly.d)All the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The ideal market is the one in which various market participants are independent and act as competitive restraints on each other. This economic liberty of market participants is sine qua non for preserving free and unfettered competition in any market. Sometimes the market participants with an objective to make more money instead of competing with each other on merits may enter into agreements to restrict competition. The words of Adam Smith that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices” are still applicable and to some extent true even today. Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the Act) seeks to prohibit such agreements.Section 3(1) of the Act inter alia prohibits an agreement between an enterprise and a person causing or is likely to cause an appreciable effect on competition within India. As the definition of person under the Act includes an individual, it leads to possible interpretation that consumers can be a party to anti-competitive agreements. This proposition contradicts the whole philosophy of competition law behind prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, but still the Act nowhere negates this proposition on the other hand seems to support it.If this proposition is answered in affirmative, it may have multi-dimensional adverse implications on contractual relations. For instance, a consumer will be able to avoid a contract if subsequently such contract is proved to be anti-competitive. This is not something which the Competition Commission doesn't have the power to do, in fact the Commission in the case of Belarie Owners Association v. DLF Ltd. & HUDA has directed DLF to modify unfair conditions in a properly entered contract. However, the rationale behind this decision was that by imposing such unfair terms the DLF has abused its Dominance and not on the ground of such agreement being anti-competitive.The issue as to whether consumers can be party to anti-competitive agreements was raised before Competition Commission in the case of Yashoda Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. v. India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. (IFSL). The Commission held that for application of Section 3 there must be two or more enterprises and there must be an agreement between them. While adjudging the same issue the Gujarat High Court in case of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ans. v. Union of India has observed that the Consumers have no role to play in anti-competitive agreements. Thus, after these judicial pronouncements it is well established that a consumer can’t be party to any anti competitive agreement as prohibited under Section 3 of the Act.Q. Which of the following best describes the Anti-Competitive Agreement?a)An agreement between an enterprise and a person causing appreciable effect on competition within India.b)The agreement which lets consumers be a contracting party with an enterprise. unchecked.c)Agreement which prohibits monopoly.d)All the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The ideal market is the one in which various market participants are independent and act as competitive restraints on each other. This economic liberty of market participants is sine qua non for preserving free and unfettered competition in any market. Sometimes the market participants with an objective to make more money instead of competing with each other on merits may enter into agreements to restrict competition. The words of Adam Smith that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices” are still applicable and to some extent true even today. Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the Act) seeks to prohibit such agreements.Section 3(1) of the Act inter alia prohibits an agreement between an enterprise and a person causing or is likely to cause an appreciable effect on competition within India. As the definition of person under the Act includes an individual, it leads to possible interpretation that consumers can be a party to anti-competitive agreements. This proposition contradicts the whole philosophy of competition law behind prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, but still the Act nowhere negates this proposition on the other hand seems to support it.If this proposition is answered in affirmative, it may have multi-dimensional adverse implications on contractual relations. For instance, a consumer will be able to avoid a contract if subsequently such contract is proved to be anti-competitive. This is not something which the Competition Commission doesn't have the power to do, in fact the Commission in the case of Belarie Owners Association v. DLF Ltd. & HUDA has directed DLF to modify unfair conditions in a properly entered contract. However, the rationale behind this decision was that by imposing such unfair terms the DLF has abused its Dominance and not on the ground of such agreement being anti-competitive.The issue as to whether consumers can be party to anti-competitive agreements was raised before Competition Commission in the case of Yashoda Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. v. India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. (IFSL). The Commission held that for application of Section 3 there must be two or more enterprises and there must be an agreement between them. While adjudging the same issue the Gujarat High Court in case of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ans. v. Union of India has observed that the Consumers have no role to play in anti-competitive agreements. Thus, after these judicial pronouncements it is well established that a consumer can’t be party to any anti competitive agreement as prohibited under Section 3 of the Act.Q. Which of the following best describes the Anti-Competitive Agreement?a)An agreement between an enterprise and a person causing appreciable effect on competition within India.b)The agreement which lets consumers be a contracting party with an enterprise. unchecked.c)Agreement which prohibits monopoly.d)All the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The ideal market is the one in which various market participants are independent and act as competitive restraints on each other. This economic liberty of market participants is sine qua non for preserving free and unfettered competition in any market. Sometimes the market participants with an objective to make more money instead of competing with each other on merits may enter into agreements to restrict competition. The words of Adam Smith that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices” are still applicable and to some extent true even today. Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the Act) seeks to prohibit such agreements.Section 3(1) of the Act inter alia prohibits an agreement between an enterprise and a person causing or is likely to cause an appreciable effect on competition within India. As the definition of person under the Act includes an individual, it leads to possible interpretation that consumers can be a party to anti-competitive agreements. This proposition contradicts the whole philosophy of competition law behind prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, but still the Act nowhere negates this proposition on the other hand seems to support it.If this proposition is answered in affirmative, it may have multi-dimensional adverse implications on contractual relations. For instance, a consumer will be able to avoid a contract if subsequently such contract is proved to be anti-competitive. This is not something which the Competition Commission doesn't have the power to do, in fact the Commission in the case of Belarie Owners Association v. DLF Ltd. & HUDA has directed DLF to modify unfair conditions in a properly entered contract. However, the rationale behind this decision was that by imposing such unfair terms the DLF has abused its Dominance and not on the ground of such agreement being anti-competitive.The issue as to whether consumers can be party to anti-competitive agreements was raised before Competition Commission in the case of Yashoda Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. v. India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. (IFSL). The Commission held that for application of Section 3 there must be two or more enterprises and there must be an agreement between them. While adjudging the same issue the Gujarat High Court in case of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ans. v. Union of India has observed that the Consumers have no role to play in anti-competitive agreements. Thus, after these judicial pronouncements it is well established that a consumer can’t be party to any anti competitive agreement as prohibited under Section 3 of the Act.Q. Which of the following best describes the Anti-Competitive Agreement?a)An agreement between an enterprise and a person causing appreciable effect on competition within India.b)The agreement which lets consumers be a contracting party with an enterprise. unchecked.c)Agreement which prohibits monopoly.d)All the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The ideal market is the one in which various market participants are independent and act as competitive restraints on each other. This economic liberty of market participants is sine qua non for preserving free and unfettered competition in any market. Sometimes the market participants with an objective to make more money instead of competing with each other on merits may enter into agreements to restrict competition. The words of Adam Smith that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices” are still applicable and to some extent true even today. Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the Act) seeks to prohibit such agreements.Section 3(1) of the Act inter alia prohibits an agreement between an enterprise and a person causing or is likely to cause an appreciable effect on competition within India. As the definition of person under the Act includes an individual, it leads to possible interpretation that consumers can be a party to anti-competitive agreements. This proposition contradicts the whole philosophy of competition law behind prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, but still the Act nowhere negates this proposition on the other hand seems to support it.If this proposition is answered in affirmative, it may have multi-dimensional adverse implications on contractual relations. For instance, a consumer will be able to avoid a contract if subsequently such contract is proved to be anti-competitive. This is not something which the Competition Commission doesn't have the power to do, in fact the Commission in the case of Belarie Owners Association v. DLF Ltd. & HUDA has directed DLF to modify unfair conditions in a properly entered contract. However, the rationale behind this decision was that by imposing such unfair terms the DLF has abused its Dominance and not on the ground of such agreement being anti-competitive.The issue as to whether consumers can be party to anti-competitive agreements was raised before Competition Commission in the case of Yashoda Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. v. India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. (IFSL). The Commission held that for application of Section 3 there must be two or more enterprises and there must be an agreement between them. While adjudging the same issue the Gujarat High Court in case of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ans. v. Union of India has observed that the Consumers have no role to play in anti-competitive agreements. Thus, after these judicial pronouncements it is well established that a consumer can’t be party to any anti competitive agreement as prohibited under Section 3 of the Act.Q. Which of the following best describes the Anti-Competitive Agreement?a)An agreement between an enterprise and a person causing appreciable effect on competition within India.b)The agreement which lets consumers be a contracting party with an enterprise. unchecked.c)Agreement which prohibits monopoly.d)All the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The ideal market is the one in which various market participants are independent and act as competitive restraints on each other. This economic liberty of market participants is sine qua non for preserving free and unfettered competition in any market. Sometimes the market participants with an objective to make more money instead of competing with each other on merits may enter into agreements to restrict competition. The words of Adam Smith that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices” are still applicable and to some extent true even today. Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the Act) seeks to prohibit such agreements.Section 3(1) of the Act inter alia prohibits an agreement between an enterprise and a person causing or is likely to cause an appreciable effect on competition within India. As the definition of person under the Act includes an individual, it leads to possible interpretation that consumers can be a party to anti-competitive agreements. This proposition contradicts the whole philosophy of competition law behind prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, but still the Act nowhere negates this proposition on the other hand seems to support it.If this proposition is answered in affirmative, it may have multi-dimensional adverse implications on contractual relations. For instance, a consumer will be able to avoid a contract if subsequently such contract is proved to be anti-competitive. This is not something which the Competition Commission doesn't have the power to do, in fact the Commission in the case of Belarie Owners Association v. DLF Ltd. & HUDA has directed DLF to modify unfair conditions in a properly entered contract. However, the rationale behind this decision was that by imposing such unfair terms the DLF has abused its Dominance and not on the ground of such agreement being anti-competitive.The issue as to whether consumers can be party to anti-competitive agreements was raised before Competition Commission in the case of Yashoda Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. v. India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. (IFSL). The Commission held that for application of Section 3 there must be two or more enterprises and there must be an agreement between them. While adjudging the same issue the Gujarat High Court in case of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ans. v. Union of India has observed that the Consumers have no role to play in anti-competitive agreements. Thus, after these judicial pronouncements it is well established that a consumer can’t be party to any anti competitive agreement as prohibited under Section 3 of the Act.Q. Which of the following best describes the Anti-Competitive Agreement?a)An agreement between an enterprise and a person causing appreciable effect on competition within India.b)The agreement which lets consumers be a contracting party with an enterprise. unchecked.c)Agreement which prohibits monopoly.d)All the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The ideal market is the one in which various market participants are independent and act as competitive restraints on each other. This economic liberty of market participants is sine qua non for preserving free and unfettered competition in any market. Sometimes the market participants with an objective to make more money instead of competing with each other on merits may enter into agreements to restrict competition. The words of Adam Smith that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices” are still applicable and to some extent true even today. Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the Act) seeks to prohibit such agreements.Section 3(1) of the Act inter alia prohibits an agreement between an enterprise and a person causing or is likely to cause an appreciable effect on competition within India. As the definition of person under the Act includes an individual, it leads to possible interpretation that consumers can be a party to anti-competitive agreements. This proposition contradicts the whole philosophy of competition law behind prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, but still the Act nowhere negates this proposition on the other hand seems to support it.If this proposition is answered in affirmative, it may have multi-dimensional adverse implications on contractual relations. For instance, a consumer will be able to avoid a contract if subsequently such contract is proved to be anti-competitive. This is not something which the Competition Commission doesn't have the power to do, in fact the Commission in the case of Belarie Owners Association v. DLF Ltd. & HUDA has directed DLF to modify unfair conditions in a properly entered contract. However, the rationale behind this decision was that by imposing such unfair terms the DLF has abused its Dominance and not on the ground of such agreement being anti-competitive.The issue as to whether consumers can be party to anti-competitive agreements was raised before Competition Commission in the case of Yashoda Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. v. India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. (IFSL). The Commission held that for application of Section 3 there must be two or more enterprises and there must be an agreement between them. While adjudging the same issue the Gujarat High Court in case of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ans. v. Union of India has observed that the Consumers have no role to play in anti-competitive agreements. Thus, after these judicial pronouncements it is well established that a consumer can’t be party to any anti competitive agreement as prohibited under Section 3 of the Act.Q. Which of the following best describes the Anti-Competitive Agreement?a)An agreement between an enterprise and a person causing appreciable effect on competition within India.b)The agreement which lets consumers be a contracting party with an enterprise. unchecked.c)Agreement which prohibits monopoly.d)All the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The ideal market is the one in which various market participants are independent and act as competitive restraints on each other. This economic liberty of market participants is sine qua non for preserving free and unfettered competition in any market. Sometimes the market participants with an objective to make more money instead of competing with each other on merits may enter into agreements to restrict competition. The words of Adam Smith that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices” are still applicable and to some extent true even today. Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the Act) seeks to prohibit such agreements.Section 3(1) of the Act inter alia prohibits an agreement between an enterprise and a person causing or is likely to cause an appreciable effect on competition within India. As the definition of person under the Act includes an individual, it leads to possible interpretation that consumers can be a party to anti-competitive agreements. This proposition contradicts the whole philosophy of competition law behind prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, but still the Act nowhere negates this proposition on the other hand seems to support it.If this proposition is answered in affirmative, it may have multi-dimensional adverse implications on contractual relations. For instance, a consumer will be able to avoid a contract if subsequently such contract is proved to be anti-competitive. This is not something which the Competition Commission doesn't have the power to do, in fact the Commission in the case of Belarie Owners Association v. DLF Ltd. & HUDA has directed DLF to modify unfair conditions in a properly entered contract. However, the rationale behind this decision was that by imposing such unfair terms the DLF has abused its Dominance and not on the ground of such agreement being anti-competitive.The issue as to whether consumers can be party to anti-competitive agreements was raised before Competition Commission in the case of Yashoda Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. v. India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. (IFSL). The Commission held that for application of Section 3 there must be two or more enterprises and there must be an agreement between them. While adjudging the same issue the Gujarat High Court in case of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ans. v. Union of India has observed that the Consumers have no role to play in anti-competitive agreements. Thus, after these judicial pronouncements it is well established that a consumer can’t be party to any anti competitive agreement as prohibited under Section 3 of the Act.Q. Which of the following best describes the Anti-Competitive Agreement?a)An agreement between an enterprise and a person causing appreciable effect on competition within India.b)The agreement which lets consumers be a contracting party with an enterprise. unchecked.c)Agreement which prohibits monopoly.d)All the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.