| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Mitchel v Reynolds ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Mitchel v Reynolds
''Mitchel v. Reynolds''〔1 P Wms 181, 24 ER 347 (QB 1711)〕 is a landmark decision in the history of the law of restraint of trade. It is generally cited for establishing the principle that reasonable restraints of trade, unlike unreasonable restraints of trade, are permissible and therefore enforceable and not a basis for civil or criminal liability. It is largely the basis in US antitrust law for the "rule of reason."〔See ''National Soc'y of Professional Engineers v. United States'', 435 U.S. 679, 689 (1978) (the rule of reason is the "standard for testing the enforceability of covenants in restraint of trade which are ancillary to a legitimate transaction").〕 William Howard Taft, then Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, later US President and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, quoted ''Mitchel'' extensively when he first developed the antitrust rule-of-reason doctrine in ''United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.'',〔85 F. 271 (6th Cir. 1898)〕 which was affirmed in 1899 by the Supreme Court.〔Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States. See ''Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp.'', 485 U.S. 717, 737-39 (1988) (dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens: "Although Judge Taft was writing as a Circuit Judge, his opinion is universally accepted as authoritative.").〕 The doctrine also played a major role in the 1911 Supreme Court case ''Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States'' 221 U.S. 1 (1911).〔''Mitchel'' is also referred to in ''Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp.'', 485 U.S. 717, 729 n.3 (1988), in which the Supreme Court declared certain types of price fixing to be potentially reasonable.〕
''Mitchel'' is also cited for the proposition that usually harmful practices may be rebuttably presumed unlawful, so that the burden of showing legitimacy is placed on the proponent of the practice.〔See concurring opinion of Justice White in ''United States v. Singer Mfg. Co''., 374 U.S. 174 (1963), where he argued that defrauding the patent office should be at least rebuttably presumed illegal under the antitrust laws, citing ''Mitchel''.〕
== Factual Setting ==
Reynolds was a baker at St Andrew Holborn (parish), which included both Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn, and therefore a considerable number of lawyers. In this litigation-prone environment, Reynolds chose to rent his bakeshop business to Mitchel for five years and gave Mitchel a bond for 50 pounds with the condition that the bond would be void if Reynolds refrained from acting as a baker in the parish for the next five years. Reynolds resumed his trade as a baker at another location in the parish within the five years, and Mitchel sued on the bond.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Mitchel v Reynolds」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|