ABSTRACT
Any company would be considered dominant in terms of the 1948 legislation if it catered for one third or more of a specified market. This definition of market dominance is clearly arbitrary. Many companies in this country serve more than one third of selected markets but are subjected to keen competition. Certainly, the one third requirement falls considerably short of the literal definition of monopoly, which involves exclusive control over the specified market. It is not surprising that a less rigid definition was adopted in the 1948 legislation. Very few companies would have fallen within the scope of the Act if the literal definition of monopoly had been adopted. Market dominance is less commonly characterized in this country by the single firm monopoly, than by competition between relatively few companies, one of which may be larger and more influential than its competitors. This latter situation is known as oligopoly.
