Competition Law (LAWS3022) Complete Study Notes

11 Found helpful • 35 Pages • Complete Study Notes • Year: Pre-2021

1: EVOLUTION OF AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION LAW Competition & Consumer Act 2010 (previously TPA 1974). Useful links:- http://australiancompetitionlaw.org/readingroom.html (Unit Chair‘s website). http://www.accc.gov.au/ http://www.australiancompetitionlaw.com   I. ORIGINS OF AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION LAW ANCIENT ORIGINS • Only big in Australia relatively recently, but restrictive trade practices (“competition law‘) has ancient origins. E.g. o Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1780 BC) contained rules about monopolies o AD 483, East Roman Emperor Zeno prohibited & exiled monopolists.1 • More recently, 3 separate attacks on restrictive trade practices emerged in 17th C English CL. • They gave origins of modern law dealing with competition issues in Australasia, USA & UK. II. CL RESPONSE TO MONOPOLIES • Prior to the Case of Monopolies, the Crown had a practice of granting monopolies in certain lines of trade. These allowed the grantee to engage in a particular trade, without competition, in exchange for royalties to be paid to the Crown. CASE OF MONOPOLIES – DARCY V ALLEN (1602) QB • Facts: Darcy held letters from the Crown granting him the exclusive right to import, make and sell playing cards in England for 21 years. Contrary to this grant, Allein made and imported playing cards and sold them to consumers. Darcy thereupon took proceedings against Allein for infringing his letters patent. The first issue that arose was whether their grant was valid. • Held: a Crown grant of monopoly in playing cards was void, as: 1. Such a monopoly prevents persons who may be skilled in a trade from practising their trade, and therefore promotes idleness. 2. Grant of a monopoly damages not only tradesman in that field, but everyone who wants to use product, as monopolist will raise price, but will have no incentive to maintain quality of goods sold. 3. 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. 4. 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

This document is 50 Exchange Credits