(1) Where, in proceedings under this Act by a person (in this section referred to as the plaintiff ) against another person (in this section referred to as the defendant ), it is claimed that the defendant has engaged in the practice of resale price maintenance and it is established that:
(a) the defendant has acted, in relation to the plaintiff, as mentioned in paragraph 98(1)(a), (b), (c) or (d);
(b) during a period ending immediately before the time when the defendant so acted, the defendant had been supplying goods of the kind withheld to the plaintiff or to another person carrying on a business similar to that of the plaintiff; and
(c) during the period of 6 months immediately before the time when the defendant so acted, the defendant became aware of a matter or circumstance capable of constituting a reason referred to in paragraph 96(3)(d) or (e) for the defendant's so acting;
then, subject to subsection (2), it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is established, that that matter or circumstance was the reason for the defendant's so acting.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the plaintiff establishes the matter mentioned in paragraph 98(1)(b) or (c) but the terms disadvantageous to the plaintiff, or the less favourable treatment of the plaintiff, consisted only of a requirement by the defendant as to the time at which, or the form in which, payment was to be made or as to the giving of security to secure payment.
(3) In the application of this section in proceedings by the Commission for an injunction, references to the plaintiff shall be construed as references to a person specified in the application for the injunction as the person in relation to whom the defendant is claimed to have acted as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a).