Editorials       Cover Story   Letters
 Subscribe Now  Contact Us
Search  
 
Book Reviews
Case Study
Constitution of India
Cover Story
Crime File
Cyber Space
Good Living
Harvard Law School
Health & Fitness
Permanent Imprint Leading
   Cases
Know Your Judge
The Law and The Celebrity
Legal Articles
Legal Events
Law for Other Species
Law School Confidential
Legal Scanner
Legal Trotternama
Media Scan
Potpourri
Reasoning The Reasons
Street Lawyer
Study Abroad
Supreme Court Cases
Thinkers & Theory
Top Law Schools
Universal Law of Success
--------------- Print Magazine --------------
 
  May 2016
 
  April 2016
 
 
 
 
Permanent Imprint Leading Cases
Case of State Monopolies
Darcy v. Allin , (1599) 74 ER 1131 (House of Lords)

Facts

The plaintiff, Edward Darcy, was a member of Queen Elizabeth's Court who received from such court a licence to import and sell all types of playing cards for their marketing in England. This licence was apparently secured in part by the Queen's concern that card-playing in England was becoming a problem among her subjects, and that having one person's control over the trade would regulate the activity. When the defendant, T. Allin, sought to make and sell his own playing cards, Darcy sued to prevent this competition.

Issue

Whether State established monopolies are inherently harmful, and therefore contrary to law?

Judgment

The Queen's Bench Court determined that the Queen's grant of monopolies was invalid on such grounds, as:

(a) Such monopolies prevent persons who may be skilled in a trade from practicing their trade, and therefore, promote idleness.

(b) Grant of monopoly damages not only tradesmen in that field, but everyone who wants to sue the product, because the monopolist will raise the price, but will have no incentive to maintain the quality of the goods sold.

(c) The Queen intended to permit this monopoly for the public good, but she must have been deceived because such a monopoly can be used only for the private gain of the monopolist.

(d) Most importantly it would set a dangerous precedent to allow a trade to be monopolized, particularly because the person being granted the monopoly, knew nothing about making cards himself, and there was no law that permitted the creation of such a monopoly.

 
LAWYERS UPDATE
(Print Version)
Rs. 600/- per year
(Registered Post & Courier)
     
 

New Releases by UNIVERSAL's

     To avail discounts and for more details write to us at marketing.in@lexisnexis.com

Home     :      About Us     :      Subscribe     :      Advertise With Us    :       Privacy     :      Copyright     :      Feedback     :      Contact Us

Copyright © Universal Book Traders. All material on this site is subject to copyright. All rights reserved.
No part of this material may be reproduced, transmitted, framed or stored in a retrieval system for public or private
use without the written permission of the publisher. This site is developed and maintained by Universal Legal Infosolutions.
Powered by: Universal Book Traders