OF I AND IN 1 ( A ) OF III ABOVE AND HAVING REGARD TO THE PARTIES ' COMPLEMENTARY SKILLS , A COOPERATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A JOINT VENTURE PROVIDES BETTER PRACTICAL PRE-CONDITIONS FOR ACHIEVING ACCEPTABLE , TIMELY AND SAFE TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS THAN THE FREE PLAY OF COMPETITION BETWEEN THE PARTIES .
( B ) THE STATE OF TECHNICAL ATTAINMENT OF THE PARTIES INDIVIDUALLY PRIOR TO THE AGREEMENT WAS SUCH THAT NPC WAS NOT WILLING TO PLACE A DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT WITH EITHER OF THE PARTIES INDEPENDENTLY OR TO INVITE THEM TO TENDER IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER . IN THE EVENT , NPC ENCOURAGED THE PARTIES TO COOPERATE AND WELCOMED THEIR JOINT VENTURE .
( C ) A MORE INDEPENDENT AND LOOSER FORM OF COOPERATION THAN A JOINT VENTURE COULD NOT IN THIS CASE BE EXPECTED TO LEAD TO SO COHERENT OR COMPREHENSIVE A DEVELOPMENT . A CROSS-LICENSING AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION AGREEMENT , FOR EXAMPLE , WOULD NOT RESULT IN A SUFFICIENTLY CLOSE SHARING BETWEEN THE PARTIES OF ALL THEIR COMPLEMENTARY SKILLS AND FACILITIES . A SPECIALIZATION AGREEMENT WOULD NOT GIVE TO EACH PARTY SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE OF OR INSIGHT INTO THE WORK OF THE OTHER . NEITHER TYPE OF ALTERNATIVE AGREEMENT COULD AS ADEQUATELY PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUOUS FEEDBACK AND SOLUTION OF INTERFACE PROBLEMS BETWEEN THE CONTRIBUTING TECHNOLOGIES OR BRING ABOUT THE BENEFITS SET OUT IN 2 OF III ABOVE .
( D ) FOR YEARS PAST , GEC HAS BEEN A FAR MORE CONSIDERABLE SUPPLIER THAN WEIR OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES WITHIN THE FIELD OF POWER ENGINEERING IN GENERAL AND FOR NUCLEAR REACTOR INSTALLATIONS IN PARTICULAR . ACCORDINGLY , GEC IS IN A SIGNIFICANTLY STRONGER MARKET POSITION THAN WEIR FOR PRODUCTS OF THE KIND IN QUESTION . WEIR COULD THEREFORE NOT HAVE BEEN EXPECTED TO FORGO , AND WAS NOT WILLING TO FORGO , THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FULL AND EQUAL PARTICIPATION WHICH ARE OFFERED THROUGH ITS PARTICIPATION IN A JOINT VENTURE . SUCH OPPORTUNITIES COULD NOT HAVE ARISEN FOR WEIR THROUGH A LOOSER FORM OF ASSOCIATION .
( E ) SO FAR AS THE NON-COMPETITION EFFECT OF THE JOINT VENTURE AND THE NON-COMPETITION RESTRICTIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ARE CONCERNED , THE FOLLOWING APPLIES . NEITHER PARTY COULD REASONABLY HAVE BEEN EXPECTED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE , IN WHICH EACH OF THEM COMMITS ALL ITS EXISTING AND FUTURE APPLICABLE FACILITIES AND EXPERTISE TO THE JOINT WORK , TO GIVE TO THE OTHER PARTY UNRESERVED RIGHTS TO EXPLOIT THE RESULTS INDEPENDENTLY OR IN ASSOCIATION WITH THIRD PARTIES . THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERE HAS NON-COMPETITION RESTRICTIONS WHICH DO NOT CONTINUE IN EFFECT AFTER EXPIRY OF THE AGREEMENT OR THE LIFE OF THE JOINT VENTURE . MOREOVER , THE RESTRICTIONS ARE QUALIFIED . THEY ARE SUBJECT TO EITHER PARTY ' S FREEDOM TO ACT INDEPENDENTLY WHERE A POTENTIAL CUSTOMER DECLINES TO CONTRACT WITH THE JOINT VENTURE OR WHERE THE OTHER PARTY DECLINES TO SUPPORT THE JOINT VENTURE IN THE ACCEPTANCE OF A PARTICULAR ORDER