| dbo:abstract
|
- Edward Darcy Esquire v Thomas Allin of London Haberdasher (1602) 74 ER 1131 (also spelt as "Allain" or "Allen" and "Allein" but most widely known as the Case of Monopolies), was an early landmark case in English law, establishing that the grant of exclusive rights to produce any article was improper (monopoly). 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. (en)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 4395 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:citations
|
- 1 (xsd:integer)
- 11 (xsd:integer)
- 74 (xsd:integer)
- 77 (xsd:integer)
- EngR 398 (en)
- Moore KB 671 (en)
- Noy 173 (en)
|
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:dateDecided
| |
| dbp:fullName
|
- Edward Darcy, Esquire v Thomas Allin, London Haberdasher (en)
|
| dbp:judges
| |
| dbp:keywords
| |
| dbp:name
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| gold:hypernym
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Edward Darcy Esquire v Thomas Allin of London Haberdasher (1602) 74 ER 1131 (also spelt as "Allain" or "Allen" and "Allein" but most widely known as the Case of Monopolies), was an early landmark case in English law, establishing that the grant of exclusive rights to produce any article was improper (monopoly). 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. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
.svg?width=300)
.svg){kind=link}