Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] UKHL 1 (26 April 1915), [1915] AC 847 is an English contract law case, with relevance for UK competition law, decided in the House of Lords. It established that an agreement for resale price maintenance was unenforceable as a matter of privity of contract.[1]
Quick Facts Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd, Court ...
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd | |
---|---|
Court | House of Lords |
Full case name | Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Limited v Selfridge and Company, Limited |
Decided | 26 April 1915 |
Citation(s) |
|
Transcript(s) | House of Lords transcript |
Case history | |
Appealed from | Court of Appeal |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | |
Keywords | |
Close
It should not be confused with Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd,[2] a separate decision of the House of Lords in the preceding year relating to substantially the same resale price maintenance agreement but ruling on the concept of liquidated damages.
Under the modern law of the Competition Act 1998 or EU competition law an agreement like this would be regulated as an anticompetitive agreement.