Sky Business / wont deal with myself because of legal action ??

unholyangel

steampowered wrote: »

Hello

Where companies operate a dominant position in the marketplace, refusal to supply a good or service can be seen as an abuse of that position. Damages can be claimed for abuse of a dominant position.

As a result companies with a dominant position can effectively be forced not to refuse to contract with people on their standard terms where there is no reasonable alternative. For example Microsoft can't refuse to sell you windows (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission).

You can verify this by typing "refusal to supply abuse of dominant position" into google, or reviewing a link such as this: http://www.reckon.co.uk/solutions/what-kind-of-issues-can-we-address/competition-law-enforcement/exclusionary-abuse/refusal-to-supply/. There have been lots of cases in which companies holding a dominant business (such as monopolies) have been successfully sued for refusing to supply or do business.

I am not suggesting the Op should start issuing claims of this nature, but I think the threat of claiming additional damages if Sky act in this manner is helpful if Sky are trying to blackmail the Op into settling his claim on poor terms.

Except that case you link was about microsoft abusing the dominant position and shutting out other software providers in favour of their own software (ie preinstalling internet explorer instead of giving people the option of which browser they wanted and thus they were abusing their position to freeze out competitors).

Furthermore, the abuse has to be of the dominant position itself - for example trying to restrict a competitors access to the market or giving their own products an unfair advantage over competitors (two things microsoft were guilty of).


In other words, its an abuse of a dominant position if they refuse to supply in order to stifle competition - but as OP is not their competitor, its not going to help them.

This page explains it in detail:
http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/commercial-law/abuse-of-refusal-to-supply.php

steampowered

Yup, you are probably right.

It is however worth pressing every avenue when in a dispute/litigation to add as much pressure as possible - you can get your bottom dollar that is what Sky's solicitors will be doing.

photome

daytona0 wrote: »

Just show Newcastle United games this season

that could be fun for the neutrals when they start underperforming and the fans get on their backs

[Deleted User]

steampowered wrote: »

It is however worth pressing every avenue when in a dispute/litigation

It is simply not true that adding irrelevant (and spurious) additional accusations will aid the OP's case.
As I already said (and unholyangel explained ) Sky have in no way abused their dominant position in the market place by refusing a service to this private individual they are in dispute with.

The OP needs to simply stick to the facts.

whiteswan

Thank you for all the replies.

Its been a few weeks of "negotiating" but after taking legal advice (free from my insurance company believe it or not) - I had to draft a letter to them which included a lot of information I did not really understand - but did include the phrase "economic duress".

The result is an offer from Sky to settle my claim in as long as I agree to withdraw the court action against them - and more importantly a re-enstatement of my services.

Its taken a while - but hopefully onward and upward.

steampowered

Well done, that's good news