Horizontal agreements deal with agreements between competitors, i.e. agreements between two or more companies that are at the same level of the production chain and in the same market. In addition, a distinction is made between agreements, a particular type of horizontal agreement and other horizontal agreements.  The Act provides for four types of horizontal agreements that are supposed to be anti-competitive: In the case of the Chicago Board of Trade/Usa11, the “rule of reason” was also discussed and explained. It states that the legitimacy of an agreement cannot be called into question by a simple test of limiting rivalry/competition. Each trade agreement and regulation is limited. Linking or controlling is their extraordinary quintessence. The real test of legitimization is whether forced deference, that is, it merely directs them and perhaps moves in that direction, advances competition, or whether it can, for example, stifle or even destroy competition. To ask this question, the court should generally consider the facts to be atypical in cases to which deference is related; its condition before and then after the restriction was imposed; the nature of the restriction and its effects, whether real or probable.
The historical context of deference, the overly existing betrayal, the reason for accepting the specific remedy, the purpose or objective to be achieved are all relevant and applicable facts. It is not that good intent protects otherwise dubious regulation or the opposite, but also mere knowledge of intent can help to interpret the facts and predict the consequences by the courts. If you would like to learn more about the contours of the control test, perhaps see Section 3.3 of the U.S. Dep`t of Justice and Federal Trade Comm`n, antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors of April 2000, which contains some analytical criteria for applying the reason review rule to agreements between real and potential competitors. Commercial practices considered illegal under antitrust legislation include: (a) horizontal pricing agreements, b) horizontal contracting agreements, (c) supply manipulations between competitors; (d) some horizontal group boycotts by competitors; and (e) sometimes binding agreements. In the second scenario, if the parties are allowed to submit their defence by the aid of 19 (3), the whole trial is reduced to a “rule of reason” and not to a “in itself” rule. The “rule of reason” clearly requires an elaborate analysis of the relevance of an agreement and the subsection (3) of section 19 allows counterparties to do the same, but the language of the law unintentionally denies the true spirit of the “per him” rule. In India, non-competitive agreements are guaranteed under Section 3 (3) of the Competition Act 2002. In substance, this can be considered the agreement denounced under the “rule per se.” This is reflected in the way in which Section 3, paragraph 3, deals with interpretations considered anti-competitive. With regard to non-competitive agreements, the assessment of sensitivity is of a very important nature and cannot be overlooked.