3 ms·
> So you'd have to show that the action had stopped the business relationship being maintained According to the article, Birkenstock policy is if anybody sells
by eridius 9y ago
> So you'd have to show that the action had stopped the business relationship being maintained
According to the article, Birkenstock policy is if anybody sells their Birkenstocks to Amazon, then they'll be blacklisted and will never receive another pair of Birkenstocks ever again. That sure sounds like Amazon's action stopping a business relationship from being maintained.
- peteretep 9y agoYour opinion clearly differs from mine, but I struggle to see any of the examples the law is meant to target as being similar. Amazon's not stopping the business relationship from being maintained, Birkenstock is via their arbitrary agreements. If anything, I'd see Amazon as having a strong case that Birkenstock are interfering in their relationship with their sellers.
- eridius 9y agoWhat do you mean by "arbitrary agreements"? Denigrating their policy as "arbitrary" sure makes it sound like you're biased. I'm sure that once Amazon started reaching out to sellers to buy Birkenstocks, they were told about Birkenstock policy. If they continue reaching out to sellers after learning that (and it appears as though they did) then I would think you can make a good case that Amazon is deliberately interfering with the sellers' relationships with Birkenstock, because Amazon knows that if they're successful in convincing a seller to sell their stock to Amazon then the seller will be blacklisted by Birkenstock. That said, IANAL, so I have no idea if this case would actually be successful if brought to suit. But it looks to me as though it has a chance.