If the termination of a contract by Amazon, eBay or other powerful online houses in view of possible monopolies an unfair disadvantage against which we can fight back? Ultimately, the problem is that it respectable and dubious Dealers are, user ratings properly, but also "revenge" - or "competitive" assessment process. Finally, the interests of large Internet worldwide is understandable here to implement effective regulations. Specifically, here is a lot of improvement and need to balance these complex structure of interests between online home, traders and consumers.
for the online auction house eBay has already decided that it is entitled to include in general terms and conditions of an ordinary right of termination. Freedom of contract dictates it to terminate continuing obligations with proper notice. A notice period of 14 days could not be called unreasonable under the Brandenburg Higher Regional Court (in 2005) because the statutory scheme of § 621 No 5 in line. The question of the justification for an ordinary dismissal was completely detached from the legality of a previous closure of the member account of the user to answer through eBay.
The online home right after, to use terms and conditions. Which shall comply with the regulations in terms Einklarung and may provide a proper right of termination. In a continuing obligation is then a proper notice to terminate. The controlled for cancellation of notice of a fortnight would not be be described as inappropriate. The dismissal was not contrary to that here is a link to the previous account suspension. independent of the previous closure - - Crucial that eBay had stated explicitly, one can speak "additional" is the termination. Therefore, it would not matter that the defendant, without any previous blocking - perhaps - would have had no reason to resign. The question of the justification for an ordinary dismissal is completely unrelated to the disputes of the parties as to the legality of the closure of the user account of the plaintiff by the defendant to answer. Because that would be the requirement of good cause, in fact, the requirement of notice of dismissal. This sits uneasily into the control system. In the present case but it was a private seller. For traders, however, is still the question of a dominant position. The Berlin Supreme Court has made a similar assessment in 2005, yet made to the GWB-position problem.
principle, then choose a platform operators such as ebay also free on the creation and maintenance of business relationships. The right honorable Member in the course of their business used the platform of the defendant may not have access right from the prohibition of abuse derive a dominant position (§ § 33, 19 paragraph 4, 20 Section 1 ARC). But
should hold the platform operator in a dominant position. A dominant position is presumed when a company has a market share of 30%, § 19 para 3 of the ARC. Whether the defendant is in the field of Internet auction houses (which was the control group) a market share of 30%, although lying close due to various circumstances. Dominance can not be determined solely by comparing the auction houses, but it is first known as the relevant market to be determined. For the product market definition was in KG-case on the jewelry trade to bring in general. That the defendant but on the field of jewelry sales a dominant position within the meaning of § 19 para 3 of the ARC was, but you can not. Moreover, should also be in a dominant position, no right of access pursuant to § 19 para 4 No 4 of the ARC made. Although covered with § 19 para 4 No 4 GWB and virtual networks and infrastructure. § 19 para 1 of the ARC was also a vertical direction of protection, ie it is not only protection from competitors, but also a protection of a non-competitor, such as the applicant given. But the Internet platform does not constitute an essential facility dar. because a right of access pursuant to § 19 para 4 No 4 of the ARC requires that either the device under their own self- -build is (duplication) or an access to other means is possible (so-called substitution). An obligation to contract fails because there is a possibility of duplication of the platform. This argument would perhaps take a closer look. Also, an access claim under § § 33, 20 Section 2 of the ARC failed. While asking § 20 para 2 of the ARC of dominance, but grab an already when a company small or medium-sized enterprises as suppliers or buyers of a certain type of goods or commercial services depend, as sufficient and reasonable opportunities to avoid other companies do not exist . Such dependence was not explained been. Already the fact that the applicant business has long been their business and had taken the first time in January 2003 to online commerce, spoke in this case against a dependency. The applicant also has not argued how much of that had had on the defendant conducted business in total revenues and net profit still seen to be an evasion not to other e-marketplaces would be possible.
0 comments:
Post a Comment