Competition Law SMP and Dominant Positions

The pursuing research paper is entitled "Competition Legislations: SMP and Dominant Positions". Competition Laws also known as Anti-trust law in a variety of countries, is a legislations coping with anti-commerce and trade related activities indulged in by companies in dominant positions. The theory behind creating Competition Law/Anti-Trust legislation is to restrict dominant companies from abusing the marketplace by; eliminating competition, creating trade obstacles, unfair pricing. The following paper i. e. "Competition Rules: SMP and Dominant Positions" introduces readers to the essential knowledge of what Competition Regulation is approximately, its creation, record and the existing scenario in the world of Competition/Anti-trust Laws. I've divided this newspaper into a five part series. This newspaper contains explanations, typified samples and Case regulations sourced from various Competition/Anti-trust laws of various countries including India.

The first part is "Introduction" supplying an insight to Competition Legislations definitions, basic meaning and need for competition in a market, the history behind Competition/Anti-trust regulations. This part also deals with formation and existence of Competition regulation in various countries like the Sherman Act, 1890 of U. S. A. , Treaty of Rome in Europe, and YOUR COMPETITION Function, 2002 of India. The Indian point of view on Competition Legislation is also given concerning give an information to the visitors as how Competition Rules developed in India, its past due access into Indian jurisprudence and the existing status.

The second part of the paper talks about the core theme of this paper; 'Understanding SMP (Special Market Electricity) and Dominant position'. This part contains what a SMP, Dominant position is and how their anti-competitive activities can destabilise market is explained to be able to assist in understanding as to what kind of abuses the marketplace is put through by dominant businesses in the following parts.

The third part of the paper, points out the 'Dynamics of Abuses by Dominant Positions'. This subject explains in regards to what are the type's abuses a dominant firm indulges in order to retain its dominant position. The two categories as per Competition/Anti-trust laws; Exclusionary Abusive and Exploitative Abusive practices are introduced, that are dealt at length in the following parts.

The fourth part of the paper and the following part handle's the primary issues of the newspaper; types of Abuses. This part explains the concept, varieties and the results of 'Exclusionary Abuses and its implications'. This part is made up seven sub-parts describing each numerous typified samples and Anti-trust case laws and regulations from various countries such as EU, United states.

The fifth and the ultimate part of the paper deal in the second group of abuses i. e. 'Exploitative Abuses and its own Implications'. Exploitative Mistreatment which mainly has got to do with 'Unfair Prices' is described at period with an important notion "Predatory Pricing". This part of newspaper cites many interesting circumstance regulations from Indian statute's and a recently available case under your competition Commission of India. Therefore, this Research Newspaper aims to provide an insight to readers on Competition Law, and its relevance in today's Competitive market segments.

Introduction:

Competition Law comes under commerce and trade regulations, also known as Anti-Trust regulation in many jurisdictions throughout the world, formed to safeguard the market from the adverse impacts due to a competition between various players existing or aiming to enter into market. Competition Law helps to protect the interests of all market players, from manufacturers to vendors to the end consumers by providing a conducive, competitive environment and control any anti-competitive behavior such as trade and commerce restraints, price fixations, monopolies, and price discrimination emerging within markets.

Competition is "a predicament in market in which businesses or retailers independently strive for the buyer's patronage in order to achieve a particular business target for example, revenue, sales or market talk about". The thought of a utopian idea called Perfect Competition as defined, "A totally reliable market situation seen as a numerous buyers and sellers, a homogeneous product, perfect information for those get-togethers, and complete liberty to move in and from the market. " is highly improbable to find in today's intricate market's world over. There were two colleges of thought for a powerful and good competitive environment; one methodology is with an definite free and unrestricted competition, which in time will drive out all unfair tactics. Second approach supports the thought, to make a free competitive environment model combined with regulations that shall prevent any subversion on free trade and competition. From observation of marketplaces from surrounding the world, most markets follow the next approach, i. e. free competition combined with rules and regulations that ensure free trade and protection of any unfair competition. Free trade and competition are necessities ingredients to monetary efficiency. This process has highly added in attaining Economical efficiency.

Economic principles are the most crucial factor, which determine market activity and regulate competition. An economic principle is reasonable and efficient as long it hits a balance between trade and the moral norms to be used for the normal good of economic efficiency. Competition coverage and liberal trade insurance plan seek to achieve the same objective stated "Economic efficiency". Competition Legislation can be an idea to bring that 'balance' between market competition and monetary principles. The markets world over have endured due to inefficient and dubious Competition regulations shaped by the legislators and presided over by appellate tribunals. The inability of MRTP Function (Monopolistic Restrictive Trade Techniques) tribunal in India is a example of the inefficient laws contributing in anti-competitive activities growing within Indian market segments. Thus, Competition Laws is an try to rectify the impaired Competition guidelines, facilitates market gain access to, other competition advertising activities with an aim to punish anti-competition activities practised by market players and to change and control the dynamics of market.

Competition Coverage is defined as "those government measures that directly impact the behaviour of organization and the structure of the industry" A highly effective Competition policy promotes the creation of any business environment, improving static and strong efficiency, causes optimum and effective source allocation, and where the maltreatment of market vitality is barred by competition. Sensible economic analysis is central to Competition coverage concerning take the right decisions in the right situations as it is the Competition policy of market that shapes fundamental economic decisions on investment, consolidation and even more significantly on costing. Whether a country is developed, developing or an market in transition, its international competitiveness is in part determined by the amount of competition or rivalry among local firms and therefore a highly effective Competition policy is vital for the creation of globally competitive establishments. Trade liberalization is not sufficient to market competition and requires effective restrictions and guidelines for attaining efficiency.

The record of Competition Rules can be followed back to the Roman Empire. The present day Competition Rules has its roots from the American antitrust statutes like Sherman Take action of 1890 and Clayton Function of 1914. It won't be wrong to say that America's School of Jurisprudence on Economic Examination of Law college of Jurisprudence is identical ant to Competition Legislations. The Western Community has incorporated the procedures of Competition Law in Articles 81 and 82 of treaty of Rome; authorized in 1957 and later have been further revised to the present Article 102 of European union. Subsequently most of the major countries like China, Russia, Brazil, South Korea, and Japan established or are in procedure for creating their own Competition regimes. In 1980, less than 40 countries had Competition laws. Presently more than 100 countries have incorporated Competition Laws in their trade and economic laws.

Though Competition Law institutionally been around in many parts of the planet, much before India, anticipated to various factors such as control by foreign forces, India hadn't developed any organizations. But conceptually India has always been profound since the ancient times on trade/monetary laws and concepts. In India, the Parliament handed down Competition Take action in 2002 and it received the President's consent in January, 2003. The Competition Act is dependant on European Union Competition Law ideas and other anti-trust statutes. With certain procedures of the Act being challenged in Hon'ble Supreme Judge of India and Hon'ble Chennai High Court, the monthly bill was amended in 2006 and used in 2007. The government established Competition Commission payment of India (CCI) on 14th Oct, 2003. The CCI is currently chaired by Mr Dhanendra Kumar, ex - Professional Director, World Loan provider.

Competition Function, 2002 will provide a system in India to develop new form of Jurisprudence and contribute to India's development in the 21st Century as India takes its rightfully deserving stand at G8, G20 and lengthened Security Council like programs.

Understanding SMP and Dominant Positions

Dominant positions and SMP (Special Market Electricity) are conditions given to a company which holds most market share in any relevant markets. A company in Dominant position enjoys the power to act and functions independently from some of its existing competitors in the market. The dominant firm can price, sell, market its products at its own conditions, and create trade obstacles in the market. The Dominant position allows companies to change just how market works by affecting/influencing opponents in its own favour. When Dominant Position is used to limit and damage Competition in market, it is considered "Abuse of Dominant Position", and it is primarily of two types: Exploitative mistreatment; Exclusionary abuse. I am coping later with the type of misuse in the paper. Most of the Anti-trust/ Competition regulations across world, define Dominant Positions similarly.

Now let's understand Dominant Positions with a known argument in a renowned Western european Economic Community circumstance under Article 82- Exclusionary Maltreatment, Commercial Solvents Circumstance held back in Luxembourg, 1974. A significant supplier company wanted to takeover a small creation company to which it provided raw materials, the creation company dependent on the supplies from this major provider company refused the takeover and so was designed to suffer as the Company Company stopped offering recycleables. This series of events explains the thought of mistreatment of Market ability by a firm in Dominant position in virtually any business sector. This is of Market Electricity, states "the power to regulate prices or exclude competitors from the marketplace" and "the power to behave to a appreciable level independently of suppliers, opponents and customers". When examining such Market power, the authorities go through the market share of a company on a specific relevant market, though market talk about is not the only source to find out Dominance, recently it's been conferred by Western european Community, any firm with an excessive amount of 70% of market talk about amounts to evidence of Dominant position.

Special commitments on businesses with "Dominance" or "Market Electricity" are designed to protect consumers from exploitation also to ensure that competition in markets is not diminished. Acquiring Dominant position or having SMP (Special Market Electric power) isn't wrong or unethical, but misuse of market electricity and anti-competitive activities conducted by a company in Dominant Position tends to restrict competition. It is the mistreatment of market ability that is considered anti-competitive, rather than dominance. YOUR COMPETITION commissions surrounding the world have been instituted not to simply punish anti-competitive activities by a company in Dominance but also to improve the way market segments work, in restrictions of fairness and competitiveness.

Nature of Abuse of Dominant Position

The mother nature of Mistreatment of Dominant Positions is defined by many Competition Commissions, world over; Article 102 of europe anti-trust laws protects a list of Abuses methods that are done by a dominant organization though it is not an exhaustive list, plus more is desired from the EU commission.

Unfair Pricing

Limited Production

Discrimination

Time

In the Indian context according to Section 4 of your competition Action, 2003, there are broadly two types of prohibitions of Mistreatment of Dominant position

Any actions used by a existing organization to exploit its positions of dominance by charging higher prices, restricting amounts or generally to remove rents;

Any actions considered by an incumbent organization to safeguard its position of dominance by restricting the access of other potential competition to enter the market.

The dynamics of Maltreatment of Dominant positions though has an alternative nomenclature in several countries, but according to the interpretation of Competition Work 2003, European union anti-trust laws and different other anti-trust laws and regulations, broadly two categories can be found;

Exclusionary Abusive tactics (denial of market gain access to, raising entry obstacles)

Exploitative Abusive tactics (extreme/ discriminatory costing, predatory costing)

Exclusionary Abuse Conduct and its Implications

Practices and conduct by organizations in dominant position that increase entry barriers, in that way eliminating or minimizing further competition are types of Exclusionary abusive do. Exclusionary abuse aims at creating superficial obstacles and limitations in market concerning make the market appear non-profitable, sophisticated to work in. This carry out by a prominent company, deters any new opponents from venturing into the market and therefore, allowing the dominant organization to consolidate its position. Exclusionary abusive conduct has been observed in various forms, described with the following typified instances and conditions. Since Competition Rules is new in India and anticipated to lack of relevant cases, I will be dealing the typified instances with EU case laws.

1) Rebates: The basic process in Rebates offered are savings awarded by an executing in a dominating position predicated on a Countervailing edge, which must be financially justified. The idea of offering Rebates is to provide such special discounts to a person that, although product emerges at a marginally cheap, in the long term keeps the client away from other competitors who subsequently cannot offer such rebates and are required to either leave from the marketplace or not business in to the market at all, citing economic non- viability. Similarly, in Michelin, the tyre company was billed for

a ) 'Tying' tyre dealers in the Netherlands to itself through the granting of selective special discounts on a person basis conditional after sales focuses on and discount percentages, which were not clearly validated in writing and by applying to them dissimilar conditions in respect of identical ant orders;

b) Granting a supplementary annual extra on acquisitions of tyre for Lorries, buses and so on and on buys of car tyres, that was conditional after attainment of an target according of car tyres acquisitions.

Thus, Rebates is a way to deter competition by luring customers with marginally priced goods and keep them from the company for a time period that repeated purchasing becomes highly profitable in the long run for the organization.

2) Loyalty Rebates: Any form of pre-conditioned rebates implied on a customer to get all goods from the prominent firm brings about mistreatment of dominance. Loyalty rebates are a conditional offer that is directed at customers to be able to stop; any competitors from selling their goods and purchasers from buying goods from other firm. This form of reselling strategy abuses the competition and market, not allowing any company to provide its products in the market, which in hand makes the dominant firm more prominent and virtually all customers and market starts depending upon items from the dominant firm. According to the judgement in Hoffmann La Roche paragraph 111 "Something on rebates on overall purchases is an mistreatment in that it aims at making the conclusions of deals at the mercy of supplementary commitments which, by their dynamics of matching to commercial consumption, have no reference to the main topic of such contracts. " This is an instance of Fidelity Rebates under Commitment rebates where the purchaser hadn't made acquisitions from a rival company during the relevant reference period of time.

3) Devotion of Inducing Amounts Rebates: The model of Devotion of inducing Level Rebates works on a theory where; a dominant company uses its position that already has substantive sales to the industry customers and will be offering rebates on incremental sales that were created in a manner, which can't be matched or competed by any other smaller organizations. This inability to complement is basically because the incremental Rebates are put on all sales and are of substantive value due to the large sales already made to the customer. Thus, customers are motivated to acquire more from the prominent firm than they would otherwise and continue to be devoted to the dominating firm. This, dominating position is utilized in the market to summarize the market to contending or potential suppliers, which in turn maintains or strengthen the dominant position of the organization. Inside the famous case between South African Airways (SAA) versus Competition Commission payment, South Africa, SAA was found to possess set focus on sales figure for travel agents and provide a basic commission till that time. However, if realtors exceeded their individual target an additional "override" commission rate would become payable not simply on the sales more than the prospective, but on all sales.

The incentive to acquire created by way of a quantity rebate system is therefore much better where the discount rates are determined on total turnover achieved during a certain period then where they are simply calculated per purchase. Thus, the longer the research period, the greater loyalty causing the quantity discount system.

4) Bundling: Bundling are a form of Rebates offered on acquisitions of a variety of products by the dominant firm. Bundling is advertising of several products only together in;

One package at one price.

Separately but at a discounted bundled price

In an instance where different products offered individually by a dominating organization do not incur the required sales, dominant firm offer the products bundled along at such high discount prices, that customers are forced to buy the bundled whole lot of products somewhat than buying the specific required product. Such Bundling by a dominant distributor violates Article 82 of the Western Community Treaty and anti-trust regulations of other countries.

5) Tying: Tying as defined, any firm in a dominant position advertising one product only on the condition that the buyer also purchases another product or agrees on not purchasing linked product from other competitor. It is reselling of a certain (tying) product only in combination with a (tied) product. This form of methods ends in problems where transfer of market vitality onto other markets where bundling/Tying company is not dominant.

In the famous Microsoft circumstance, Microsoft Businesses used its prominent position by tying up its Operating System i. e. Glass windows 2000 along with Windows Media Player, it was noticed "a leveraging infringement, consisting in Microsoft's use of its dominant position on the client PC operating systems market to increase that dominant position to two adjacent marketplaces, namely the markets for work group server os's and the marketplace for streaming advertising players. "

Thus, the practice of retailing of an tying (product) along with a tied (product) can be an infringement of competition and anti-trust laws. Tying up is another form of Exclusionary Abusive Do of rebate structure, that allows the dominant firm to regulate and abuse the market, by advertising of its variety of goods in a inseparable manner. The tying and the attached product remain for providing together.

6) Refusal to Offer: Refusal by a company in dominant position to supply to its competitors or customers any tangible, infrastructure and IP related product is Refusal to Package. A refusal to provide to a rival can be "First Time" refusal of supply as observed in Bronner, Ladbroke cases or "Complete Termination" of all existing method of trading as observed in Commercial Solvents, Aspen circumstance. In both these circumstances mentioned on Refusal to provide a dominant organization can point-blank refuse to source or offer source with such pre-conditions that are so disadvantageous that results in total refusal to provide. Refusal to provide Rivals and Refusal to provide Customers can both have immense Exclusionary affects, but the former and latter are of an extremely different dynamics. Now let's understand some basic nuances of both:-

a) Refusal to provide to Rivals: Each organization in a dominating position or having SMP have the overall duty to assist its opponents with any tangible advantage or a breakthrough technology. The idea is all firms present in market are meant to compete one-another, develop rival-technologies, belongings and products. The marketplace works on basic principle of advancement and advancements. Refusal to provide to a competition is equivalent ant to anti-competitive actions, when a dominating firm manages/gains usage of a tool or a facility that can't be replicated. The dominant firm is aimed at reserving the center, tool to itself, disallowing some of its competitors to gain access, resulting in elimination of rivals and downsizing of the marketplace.

b) Refusal to Supply to Customers: A dominant positioned firm's refusal to provide to customers is a designed technique to cause customer's buying behaviours. Here the basic idea is to threaten/ scare the client in order to make them admit certain trading norms as dictated by the prominent firm. A relevant example is of "single branding", in which a dominant company refuses; to sell or continue steadily to sell a "must stock" product to a supermarket string because the customer i. e. Supermarket store also stocks and options a rival product. Faced with the existing situation, the customer will be forced to discontinue acquisitions of the rival product and buy only the "must stock" brand i. e. prominent firm's product. This technique adopted by prominent firm also serves as a bargaining tool; to ensure customers complies with the trading and retailing regulations. An induced customer submitting to the requirements of the dominating company restricts and eliminates all competition from your competition. In United Brands and Lorain Journal circumstance, the only paper in town refused to sell publication advertising to people who also promoted on the competition radio train station. This was presented to be an attempt to monopolize the advertising market and a violation of Para. 2 of U. S. anti-trust laws. Thus, Refusal to Supply to customers is a way to bully customers and change the buying behaviour of customers, leading to long term loss and eradication of rival companies from the competition market.

7) Price/ Margin Press: A situation in the market; whenever a vertically integrated dominant company uses its control over its inputs and items to downstream rivals, packages it prices at a rate in order to avoid its rival companies from making a revenue in downstream market, where the dominant organization is also productive. Thus the prominent company in upstream market also dominates downstream market. Margin Squash occurs when difference between low cost price and retail price of the ultimate goods/services will not give an efficient downstream firm a reasonable profit margin. Under any anti-trust/competition legislations, Margin Squeeze abuse requires the following conditions to be satisfied to establish any abusive conduct on part of the vertically integrated dominant firm

Existence of the dominant vertically designed firm.

The input given by vertically integrated company should be essential/ non-substitutable for competitors and competition.

Input offered constitutes substantial portion of the downstream cost.

However, the conditions are pretty challenging and emphasise that it is anti-competitive impact on downstream market that must be addressed, therefore the downstream market is competitive; and downstream organization has choice of substitutable inputs, than even if the margins are low/negative, prominent upstream company is not held accountable by means of margin/price press.

The Competition Act 2002, under Section 4(2) (e) prohibits Price/Margin Press and state governments "if an venture of an organization uses its dominant position in a single relevant market to enter into, or protect other relevant market" it is a clear violation under Section 4 resulting in Price/Margin Squeeze. Further the Work will not only prohibit tactical Price/Margin press by a dominant firm but also offers a provision under Expose Involvement Mechanism under Section 19(4) to control Margin squash.

In america of America, any competition who seems threatened by a vertically dominant firm, disorders the offender under Section 2 of the Sherman Work. However, within the Supreme Courtroom of United States of America, 2004 decision in Trinko judgement, it presumed that "a margin squash that neither causes nor threatens the monopolization of identifiable market cannot go away muster under Section 2. In this respect, United States anti-trust laws change significantly from the laws of jurisdictions adopting "abuse of dominance" as a competition regulation violation as compared to Article 82 of the EU commission.

The way to obtain anti-trust's pre-Trinko in things of Price Press Jurisprudence is Judge Learned Hand's 1945 judgment in Alcoa. Under Alcoa, a vertically integrated monopolist must impose downstream competitors only a "fair price" for its bottle neck source, and it must demand customers a retail price because of its downstream product that is high enough to ensure that it's high enough to ensure that its competitors can match that price but still make a "living profit".

Exploitative Abusive Do and its own Implications

Exploitative abuse involves discriminatory costs, unfair trading conditions subjected at dependent customers to be able to maximise earnings and retain prominent position on the market. Any biased/prejudiced selling policies by a firm which themes its customers to pay more or effect buying behaviour within an anticompetitive manner results to direct harm to customers and Exploitative abuse. The dominant organizations can also increase prices to increase revenue, because customers cannot easily turn to other businesses and they lose out on paying more and purchasing less, resulting in misallocation of resources. Thus exploitative abuse can be interpreted as "earning of monopoly revenue at the trouble of the customers". Now I will be addressing the two main forms of Exploitative Abuse; Unfair Rates and Unfair Trading conditions at period with the aid of some Indian Commission payment and European Union case laws and regulations.

Unfair Costing: The idea of Unfair Prices works on the concept of high charging of any offered product, service to customers in order to make monopolistic revenue and control the market share. Excessive rates by a prominent firm within an Exploitative Abusive level is performed the two periods of Predatory pricing and post-Predatory charges. To be able to understand Unfair Pricing under this perspective, let's first understand the evil of Predatory Charges.

Predatory Rates- Practice of selling a product/ service at a minimal price usually below the profit margin levels, to be able to remove the competing businesses, create superficial barriers of entry for probably new competitors is Predatory rates. As per your competition Action, 2002 under Section 4 (2) (b) Predatory Price means "the sale of goods or provision of services, at a cost which is below the cost, as maybe determined by the restrictions, of development of good or provision of services, with a view to reduce competition or eliminate the competitors. " Dominating firms adopt a short-run carry out which looks for to exclude rival organizations from competition over a basis other than efficiency to be able to protect or acquire the market. Although marginally low cost offered on the product/service by way of a dominant firm will not harm the purchasing get together/ customer in a direct manner, but Predatory charges eliminates Perfect Competition from the market, which might have been more beneficial than low cost products. The clients interest is harmed over time, as dominant firms tend to increase price and demand excessively one's all competition are driven out of the market. An extremely relevant case upon this subject rests with the CCI (Competition Payment of India), Case no. 13/2009, MCX STOCK MARKET filed information with the CCI that NSE (Country wide STOCK MARKET), the major stock exchange in India was abusing its prominent position by engaging in;

Predatory costs (zero pricing),

Refusing to deal with MCX SX promoter FTIL (a supplier of software answers to broker agents).

The relevant market that MCX SX alleged was the STOCK MARKET service that includes 4 segments; Bills, Collateral, F&O (Future and Options) and Compact disc (Currency Derivatives). The NSE moved into CD (Money Derivative) section on 29th August, 2008 and was aware that MCX also possessed applied to regulators; SEBI and RBI. MCX entered CD segment on 7th October, 2008. MCX has argued that the physical market in cases like this is India, and also alleged that NSE was at a prominent position as it handled 90% of the marketplace share for stock exchange services, though NSE's Compact disc segment market show was 50% for relevant period, NSE used its dominant position in other sections to influence CD segment markets by participating in transaction/admission charge waivers in order to destroy competition and eliminate MCX as a competitor. Thus MCX relying after some EU circumstance regulations such as Tetra Pak II circumstance lodged the grievance with the CCI. The CCI developed view of prima facie case at the end of March 2010 and directed the Director General CCI to launch a study into NSE do. The DG submitted report to the CCI on 27th Sept, 2010. The existing status of the circumstance rests with a Writ Petition submitted by NSE prior to the Delhi High Court against CCI order not to grant additional time to respond to the DG's statement.

There are quarrels towards dominant businesses as well, stating mere offering of products at lower costs, minimal than costs of development will not suffice to Predatory charges, unless the motives to drive the competition are proven. There were several judicial pronouncements that have proven the same, in India, cases under MRTP Commission payment; Modern Food Sectors, it was held "it requires to be set up that charges of the merchandise below the cost of development was with an goal to drive the competitor from the market or to get rid of the competition", further it was held "mere offering of costs below the expense of production will not prove Predatory prices". The said procedure was also applied in the Britannia Market sectors Ltd. circumstance, further proving the said debate.

Thus-

Mere reality of offer price < Cost of production Predatory pricing

Now coming back to the problem of Unfair Prices under Exploitative Abusive carry out as stated previously unfair charges works at two phases; Predatory rates and Post-Predatory charges. As we've seen, predatory costs offers products less than costs of production in order to get rid of competition, and find and maintain dominating position. Predatory costing is a stage when, dominant forms are ready to lose profit margins in the original short run and with looking at the long term prospects of earning income in the longer run once all competitors are eliminated by inflating prices in many folds to recuperate from previous loss and achieve future benefits. In the Post-Predation stage, prominent businesses now start exploiting the customers by charging excessive prices on the offered products, capitalising on the prominent position, as customer cannot change to any competing firm.

A leading case in this is United Brands, in which the court performed that "charging a price that is unnecessary because it does not have any reasonable relation to the monetary value of the product would be an maltreatment of a prominent position". Therefore in this stage, customers are dictated by the conditions of the dominating firm, leading to paying unnecessary price for a product that what they might have paid under perfect competition.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)