The purpose of the study is to ascertain the meaning and ambit of section 12(2)(g) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998. The main question that the study will focus on is in which instances a firm can be said to control another firm by having the ability to materially influence the policy of that firm in a manner comparable to a person who, in the ordinary commercial practice, can exercise an element of control referred to in section 12. The study will look at: <ul> (a) the South African competition law and policy; (b) the Competition Act and its application; (c) merger definition and regulations; (d) the concept of control and definition of control; and (e) the scope of application of 12(2)(g) of the Competition Act.</ul> Copyright / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Mercantile Law / unrestricted

Thesis (M.Law) --University of Limpopo, 2008 / the University of Limpopo Financial Office

The Competition Act 89 of 1998 prohibits abuse of its dominance by a firm that is dominant within a specific market. The abuse of dominance prohibitions are set out in section 8 of the Act. This dissertation focuses on section 8(b) which prohibits a dominant firm from refusing to give access to an essential facility that belongs to the dominant firm or to which the dominant firm has access, in circumstances where it is economically feasible for the dominant firm to provide such access. The concept of an “essential facility” is problematic in South African competition law and this dissertation probes into the characteristics of such a facility and the requirements of proving a contravention of section 8(b). A comparative study of the US and EU is undertaken and it is eventually concluded that the South African Competition Authorities should lean more towards the US approach to the essential facilities prohibition. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / gm2014 / Mercantile Law / unrestricted