Darcy v. Allein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Darcy v. Allein, 77 Eng. Rep. 1260 (King's Bench, 1603) (often mis-spelled as Darcy v. Allain or Darcy v. Allen, but most widely known as The Case of Monopolies), was an early landmark case in English law, establishing that it was improper for any individual to be allowed to have a monopoly over a trade. The reasoning behind the outcome of the case - which was decided at a time before courts regularly issued written opinions - was reported by Sir Edward Coke.
[edit] Facts
The plaintiff, Edward Darcy, was a member of Queen Elizabeth's court who received from the queen a license to import and sell all playing cards to be marketed in the United Kingdom. This arrangement was apparently secured in part by the Queen's concern that card-playing was becoming a problem among her subjects, and that having one person control the trade would regulate the activity. When the defendant, T. Allein, sought to make and sell his own playing cards, Darcy sued to prevent this competition.
[edit] Ruling
The court determined that the Queen's grant of a monopoly was invalid, for several reasons:
- Such a monopoly prevents persons who may be skilled in a trade from practicing their trade, and therefore promotes idleness.
- Grant of a monopoly damages not only tradesman in that field, but everyone who wants to use the product, because the monopolist will raise the price, but will have no incentive to maintain the quality of the goods sold.
- The Queen intended to permit this monopoly for the public good, but she must have been deceived because such a monopoly can only be used for the private gain of the monopolist.
- It would set a dangerous precedent to allow a trade to be monopolized - particularly because the person being granted the monopoly in this case knew nothing about making cards himself, and where there was no law that permitted the creation of such a monopoly.
[edit] Significance
Darcy v. Allein was the first definitive statement by a court that monopolies are inherently harmful, and therefore contrary to law. The case has since come to be known as The Case of Monopolies, and the arguments set forth therein have served as the basis for modern antitrust and competition law.
