The nine lives of Vietnam's new competition law

Vietnam's present draft of the proposed new Law on Competition is currently in its ninth version. Although there is a need to enact legislation as quickly as possible, Vietnam cannot rush the drafting process. Under its Bilateral Trade Agreement with the USA, Vietnam has committed to improve the quality of its laws and consistency of its legislative framework. Since the Law on Competition will be fundamental in establishing the legal framework for a more coherent and effective competition regime, and will have profound influences on Vietnam's objective of becoming a socialist-oriented market economy, its provisions must be well constructed and well considered, and this takes time. This article shows how the proposed Law is being crafted as compared to older drafts which sheds light on changes in policy during the drafting process. Where possible, the Draft is also compared with the laws in other jurisdictions for any assistance they might lend. In this author's opinion not all the changes are positive but any defects in the draft are not intractable and can be remedied prior to promulgation.

Standardisation and patent ambush : potential liability under Australian competition law

This article examines the problem of patent ambush in standard setting, where patent owners are sometimes able to capture industry standards in order to secure monopoly power and windfall profits. Because standardisation generally introduces high switching costs, patent ambush can impose significant costs on downstream manufacturers and consumers and drastically reduce the efficiency gains of standardisation.This article considers how Australian competition law is likely to apply to patent ambush both in the development of a standard (through misrepresenting the existence of an essential patent) and after a standard is implemented (through refusing to license an essential patented technology either at all or on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms). This article suggests that non-disclosure of patent interests is unlikely to restrained by Part IV of the Trade Practices Act (TPA), and refusals to license are only likely to be restrained if the refusal involves leveraging or exclusive dealing. By contrast, Standard Setting Organisations (SSOs) which seek to limit this behaviour through private ordering may face considerable scrutiny under the new cartel provisions of the TPA. This article concludes that SSOs may be best advised to implement administrative measures to prevent patent hold-up, such as reviewing which patents are essential for the implementation of a standard, asking patent holders to make their licence conditions public to promote transparency, and establishing forums where patent licensees can complain about licence terms that they consider to be unreasonable or discriminatory. Additionally, the ACCC may play a role in authorising SSO policies that could otherwise breach the new cartel provisions, but which have the practical effect of promoting competition in the standards setting environment.

Commercial vulnerability of tenant : a special disadvantage?

The Full Federal Court has once again been called upon to explore the limits of s51AA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in the context of a retail tenancy between commercially experienced parties. The decision is Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 62.

Can compensation be claimed under the standard commercial land and building contract where the property sold has no legally enforceable vehicular access?

This was the question that confronted Wilson J in Jarema Pty Ltd v Michihiko Kato [2004] QSC 451. Facts The plaintiff was the buyer of a commercial property at Bundall. The property comprised a 6 storey office building with a basement car park with 54 car parking spaces. The property was sold for $5 million with the contract being the standard REIQ/QLS form for Commercial Land and Buildings (2nd ed GST reprint). The contract provided for a “due diligence” period. During this period, the buyer’s solicitors discovered that there was no direct access from a public road to the car park entrance. Access to the car park was over a lot of which the Gold Coast City Council was the registered owner under a nomination of trustees, the Council holding the property on trust for car parking and town planning purposes. Due to the absence of a registered easement over the Council’s land, the buyer’s solicitors sought a reduction in the purchase price. The seller would not agree to this. Finally the sale was completed with the buyer reserving its rights to seek compensation.

Changes to the REIQ contract and conveyancing case law update

The Reference Schedule to the REIQ houses and land contract and the lots in a Community Titles Scheme (“CTS”) contract has been amended to contain provision for disclosure concerning the installation of an approved safety switch. This section will not be required to be completed if the land is vacant (in the case of the houses and land contract) or if the present use is a commercial use (in the case of the lots in a CTS contract).

The source of the good faith obligation in the performance and enforcement of commercial contracts

There are many issues associated with good faith that will ultimately confront the Australian High Court and a number of these have been well canvassed. However, one significant issue has attracted relatively little comment. To date, a number of Australian courts (lower in the judicial hierarchy) have been prepared to hold directly, tacitly accept or assume (without making a final determination) that good faith is implied (as a matter of law) in the performance and enforcement of a very broad class of contract, namely commercial contracts per se. This broad approach is demonstrated in decisions from the Federal Court, the New South Wales Court of Appeal, the Supreme Courts of Victoria and Western Australia and has crept into pleadings in commercial matters in Queensland

Acquire a practical overview of 'good faith' in commercial contracting

The twists and turns in the ongoing development of the implied common law good faith obligation in the commercial contractual arena continue to prove fertile academic ground. Despite a lack of guidance from the High Court, the lower courts have been besieged by claims based, in part, on the implied obligation. Although lower court authority is lacking consistency and the ‘decisions in which lower courts have recognised the legitimacy of implication of a term of good faith vary in their suggested rationales’, the implied obligation may provide some comfort to a party to ‘at least some commercial contracts’ faced with a contractual counterpart exhibiting symptoms of bad faith.

The borders that law sets on entertainment

It is natural for those involved in entertainment to focus on the art. However, like any activity in even a free society, those involved in entertainment industries must operate within borders set by the law. This article examines the main areas of law that impact entertainment in an Australian context. It contrasts the position in relation to freedom of expression in Australia with that in the United States, which also promotes freedom of expression in a free society. It then briefly canvases the main limits on entertainment productions under Australian law.

The Commercial Surrogacy Dilemma

In November 2009 the England and Wales High Court (Family Division) granted a parental order pursuant to s30 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 in respect of twins who came to be in the custody and control of the applicants (Mr and Mrs A) through a surrogacy arrangement. The particularly unusual and interesting aspect of this case is that, on the evidence, Mr and Mrs A had paid expenses to the surrogate above and beyond those allowed by the legislation, thus creating a commercial surrogacy arrangement. Commercial surrogacy arrangements involve the payment of money to the surrogate mother in excess of those expenses which have been reasonably incurred pursuant to the surrogacy arrangement. This case is relevant to Queensland law because commercial surrogacy arrangements are also prohibited in Queensland and, as in the United Kingdom, the court cannot make a parentage order unless it is satisfied the surrogacy arrangement is not a commercial surrogacy arrangement.