This thesis explores the question how unilateral conduct can create, vary or discharge obligations in English private law and how unilateral conduct is regulated. First, it is explained that the reason for asking this question follows from the candidate’s background in a civil law jurisdiction, in which unilateral juridical acts are regarded a category of legally relevant behaviour. After observing the obstacles in English law to the recognition of the civil law concept of unilateral juridical acts, a number of examples of unilateral conduct are identified that create legal effect. The focus of the thesis is on examples of unilateral conduct that create, vary or discharge obligations. English law allows the creation of obligations by unilateral conduct only in very specific instances. It is observed that unilateral conduct can create or transfer property rights. The different approach is explained primarily by deeply rooted distinction in English law between words and acts. Subsequently, the thesis discusses how unilateral conduct is regulated. For some issues, notably interpretation, revocability and the intention to create legal effect, similar rules apply to the different examples of unilateral conduct. For other issues, especially mistake and form requirements, the rules diverge. It is concluded that unilateral conduct forms a category of legally relevant behaviour in English law. This category is divided in unilateral conduct that creates obligations, quasi-contractual unilateral conduct that varies or discharges obligations and unilateral voluntary property transactions. Whereas quasi-contractual unilateral conduct is closely related to contracts and should thus generally be regulated in a manner similar to contracts, the unilateral voluntary property transaction is a distinct concept, to which specific rules apply.

Submitted by Marjorie Afonso (afonso.marjorie@gmail.com) on 2018-01-30T13:41:43Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação Marjorie Afonso - Final.pdf: 1355047 bytes, checksum: e8838a588d7c30b7140e410b32128224 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Diego Andrade (diego.andrade@fgv.br) on 2018-02-08T18:34:21Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação Marjorie Afonso - Final.pdf: 1355047 bytes, checksum: e8838a588d7c30b7140e410b32128224 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-02-19T18:45:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação Marjorie Afonso - Final.pdf: 1355047 bytes, checksum: e8838a588d7c30b7140e410b32128224 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-01-05 / Neste trabalho, pretende-se estudar como se dá o controle concorrencial de condutas unilaterais das empresas públicas e sociedades de economia mista pelo CADE. Pretende-se verificar: (i) se as empresas estatais estão sujeitas ao controle concorrencial de condutas exercido pelo CADE, tal como previsto na Lei no 12.529/2011, (ii) se o CADE exerce o controle das condutas unilaterais praticadas pelas empresas estatais tal como previsto na legislação aplicável, (iii) se, e em quais casos, há ou deve haver uma isenção do controle concorrencial sobre as condutas unilaterais das empresas estatais, e (iv) se a metodologia adotada pelo CADE para a análise e o controle de condutas unilaterais das estatais é adequada para identificar e coibir práticas anticompetitivas unilaterais praticadas por empresas estatais. Na primeira parte, foram estudadas as regras que definem a competência do CADE, de forma a delimitar o escopo subjetivo de aplicação da Lei nº 12.529/2011, e foram analisados alguns precedentes do CADE que tratam de sua competência subjetiva, com especial ênfase na aplicação das normas concorrenciais aos entes públicos e na atividade de prestação de serviços públicos. Verificamos que o CADE possui, de fato, competência para controlar as condutas concorrenciais das empresas estatais, mas exerceu esse poder poucas vezes. Em seguida, foram investigadas as possíveis isenções concorrenciais que podem se aplicar às empresas em geral, e às empresas estatais, especificamente. Verificamos que a jurisprudência e doutrina pátria já reconhecem a possibilidade de isenção decorrente da regulação. Analisou-se, também, a possibilidade de isenção das condutas das empresas estatais que sejam voltadas à promoção de políticas públicas, e concluiu-se que, diante do risco de captura da empresa estatal, a isenção não seria adequada. Na segunda parte, apresentamos alguns incentivos que recaem sobre os acionistas e administradores das empresas estatais e que pautam a sua conduta concorrencial. Em seguida, foi analisada a metodologia do CADE para a identificação e o controle das condutas anticompetitivas uniliterais – abuso de posição dominante e prática de preços predatórios, especificamente – para verificar se esta é adequada quando aplicada às empresas estatais. Verificou-se que algumas premissas das quais o CADE parte em sua análise, não são perfeitamente aplicáveis à realidade das empresas estatais / In this paper, we intend to study how CADE carries out antitrust control of unilateral conduct of state-owned enterprises. We intend to verify: (i) whether state-owned enterprises are subject to the antitrust control by CADE, as provided for in Law 12,529 of 2011 (ii) whether CADE exercises this control, (iii) whether and in what cases, there should be an exemption from competitive control of unilateral conduct of state-owned enterprises, and (iv) whether the methodology adopted by CADE for the analysis and control of unilateral conduct by state-owned is adequate to identify and restrain unilateral anticompetitive practices by these companies. In the first part, we examine the rules that define CADE's competence in order to define the subjective scope of Law 12,529 of 2011 and analyze some precedents in which CADE addresses its subjective competence with special emphasis on the application of the competition rules to public entities and public services. We have verified that CADE is indeed competent to control the competitive behavior of state-owned enterprises but has used this power only on rare occasions. Next, we examined the possible competitive exemptions that may apply to companies in general, and to state-owned enterprises, specifically. We have verified that jurisprudence and legal scholars already recognize that regulation may lead to imunity from antitrust control. Furthermore, we addressed if measures taken by of state-owned enterprises that are to promote public policies could be exempted from antitrust control. In the second part, we present some incentives that apply to shareholders and administrators of state-owned enterprises and that will affect the competitive behavior by these firms. Next, we analyzed CADE’s methodology for the identification and control of unliteral anticompetitive conduct – specifically regarding the abuse of dominant position and predatory pricing – to verify if it is adequate when applied to state-owned enterprises. We have verified that the rule of reason applied to verify if the conduct of a dominant firm is abusive, in general, only considers the economic efficiencies of the investigated conduct, and not other possible social and public policies gains that can be legitimately pursued by the state-owned enterprises

In South Africa compliance with competition law has become a major concern for firms that achieve and maintain certain levels of success and growth in the market, as their actions are often a source of complaints and litigation by rivals and competition authorities. With substantial financial penalties often levied against them for a variety of conduct deemed to constitute an abuse of their market position, dominant firms must constantly be aware of the likely impact of their business strategies and actions on both rivals and consumers. What were once thought to be normal and economically sound business practices and decisions, such as cutting prices to attract customers, have now acquired new meanings, with devastating consequences for dominant firms. So, are dominant firms under attack from competition law? In this study I aim to determine this. I track the historical development of competition law in three jurisdictions: South Africa, America, and the EU, with the aim of identifying traces, if any, of hostility towards dominant firms in the origins of competition law. I further investigate whether the formulation and enforcement of certain aspects of existing abuse of dominance provisions manifest as hostility towards dominant firms. While acknowledging the important role that competition law enforcement plays in promoting competition and enhancing consumer welfare, I conclude that significant unjustified economic and legal prejudice is suffered by dominant firms as a result of the way in which certain abuse of dominance provisions have been formulated and applied. I also offer appropriate recommendations. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.