HC Deb 30 July 1956 vol 557 cc974-5

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 22, line 22, leave out subsection (3.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 25, at end insert: (4) A contract for the sale of goods to which not more than two persons are party shall not be unlawful under this section by reason only of undertakings by the purchaser in relation to the goods sold and by the vendor in relation to other goods of the same description.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The previous Amendment brought us to Part II of the Bill and to Clause 23, which deals with the enforcement of conditions as to resale prices. This Clause makes it unlawful for buyers to boycott or discriminate against any dealer who infringes resale price conditions, and also makes it unlawful for suppliers to agree to supply only persons who undertake to boycott or discriminate against dealers who infringe resale price conditions.

While there is nothing in the Clause as drafted to make it unlawful for a manufacturer to require a wholesaler to cut off supplies of the manufacturer's goods from a price-cutting retailer, it is not possible for the manufacturer also to agree that he will cut off any direct supplies which he may make to the price-cutter. That is because the two suppliers, the manufacturer and the wholesaler, would then be agreeing to cut off supplies, and that would be unlawful.

We consider that that is unsatisfactory, because it is only reasonable that the wholesaler, in agreeing to cut off supplies from a price-cutting retailer, should have some assurance that the manufacturer will not move in and supply the retailer direct. So the effect of this Amendment is to correct the position as it stands by allowing a manufacturer, not only to require the wholesaler not to supply price-cutters with the goods in question, but also to agree himself not to supply the price-cutter with goods of that type.