Monopolizing at Common Law and under Section Two of the Sherman Act

1917 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward A. Adler
Keyword(s):  
1981 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 308-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Ransom

The Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 (Cth) was modelled closely on the United States Sherman Act. Early United States criminal monopolization cases were not very successful, and the statutory language was read down by a judiciary oriented toward common law contract analysis. The same thing is happening in current Australian cases. One of the finest monopolization opinions ever written is that of Mr Justice Isaacs in the 1911 Coal Vend case. It should be resurrected and used as the foundation for the development of Australian restrictive trade practices law.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley

In this article, Professor Steve Hedley offers a Common Law response to he recently published arguments of Professor Nils Jansen on the German law of unjustified enrichment (as to which, see Jansen, “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment” (2016) 20 EdinLR 123). The author takes the view that Jansen's paper provided a welcome opportunity to reconsider not merely what unjust enrichment can logically be, but what it is for. He argues that unjust enrichment talk contributes little of value, and that the supposedly logical process of stating it at a high level of abstraction, and then seeking to deduce the law from that abstraction, merely distracts lawyers from the equities of the cases they consider.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document