DARCY V. ALLIEN
Edward Darcy Esquire V. Thomas Allien of London Haberdasher was an early landmark case in English law which is also known as Case of Monopolies. In this case, it was held that granting exclusive rights to produce an article or monopoly is improper.
FACTS OF THE CASE :
The Queen granted the plaintiff, Edward Darcy, a Groom of the Chamber at the court of Queen Elizabeth, a license to import and sell any playing cards intended for the English market. The Queen’s worry that card-playing was becoming a problem among her citizens and that having one person supervise the trade would regulate the pastime, it seems, helped obtain this agreement. Darcy filed a lawsuit and filed a claim for damages after Thomas Allin, the defendant and a member of the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers, attempted to produce and sell his own playing cards.
The Queen’s Bench delivered the following judgment and held monopoly as improper. Such a monopoly encourages inactivity because it forbids people with potential trade skills from using those skills. Because the monopolist would raise the price yet have no motivation to maintain the quality of the items sold, the grant of a monopoly hurts not only the traders in that industry but also everyone who wants to utilize the commodity.
The Queen wanted to allow this monopoly for the sake of the general public, but she must have been duped because a monopoly like that can only be exploited for the monopolist’s own gain.
JUDGMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY.