In accordance with C.C.I.`s order, an agreement of commitment is entered into when a seller, by a contractual or technological requirement, conditions the sale or lease of a product or service at the customer`s agreement to take over a second product or service in the order, C.C.I. acknowledges that the links are not contrary to the competition itself. , because ”the economic literature indicates that there are pro-competitive reasons for product fixing. These include the benefits of assembly, improving quality and eliminating price inefficiencies. It therefore seems clear that C.C.I. essentially recognizes that integrations must be treated in a reason-led approach, as is the case with regulatory regulation. 3 (4) of the law. Subsequently, C.C.I. very categorically identifies the ”necessary and essential conditions” for the ”anti-competitive link” that is: (1) the presence of two distinct products or services that may be linked; 2. To substantially limit free competition in the market for their product, the seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the binding product (3) The commitment agreement must affect a significant amount of transactions. presumption of economic power.

[6] In the meantime, the Supreme Court decided that an applicant must determine the market power necessary for other cartel violations in order to demonstrate sufficient ”economic power” to establish one. [7] More recently, the Court struck down any presumption of market power solely on the basis of patenting or copyright of the binder product. [8] Certain types of commitments, particularly contractual ones, have been considered anti-competitive practices in the past. The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by forcing them to buy an unwanted good (the linked property) to buy a property they actually want (binding it well) and, therefore, he would prefer that the goods be sold separately. The company that does this pooling can have a significant market share, which allows it to impose the link on consumers despite competitive forces in the market. The tie can also harm other companies in the market for the related property, or that sell only individual components. The agreement includes any agreement that imposes a precondition on a purchaser of goods for the purchase of another type of goods. It is also called commitment agreement, commitment agreement, commitment sale, tie-up sale or clubbed sale.

As explained in Section 3, paragraph 4, the Commitment Agreement includes any agreement requiring a purchaser of goods to purchase other products as a precondition for that purchase. The product or service received by the buyer based on his needs is designated as a binding product or a service, and the forced or forced product in relation to the buyer is designated as a related product. Where an agreement of engagement is illegal, it may, in itself, be illegal or illegal as a result of the statement of reasons. The conditions of a violation per se are: the forced purchase of property to obtain a separate property or service; the seller`s sufficient economic power over the binding product to restrict free trade in the related product market; and that the agreement covers a significant volume of transactions in the related product market. If the conditions for a violation of the law are not met, an agreement of commitment may be unlawful under the basic principle if it results in an inappropriate restriction of trade in the relevant market, in accordance with Section 1 of the Sherman Act; or its likely effect is considerable insanity in the market in question according to . 3 of the Clayton Act. A commitment agreement under Article 3, paragraph 4, point (a) must be considered to determine its actual or probable negative effect on competition, the only determining factor according to the immediate provision to be calculated taking into account the enumerations provided for in section 19(3) of the Act.