Standard Oil Trust Agreement 1882
Category : 未分类
It is clear from the review that has just been made that, apart from the restrictions arising from an individual`s lack of power, his right to activity or activity should be deliberately and inappropriately restricted and, apart from the absence of the right to restrict freedom of trade through contracts or acts that involve an unlawful purpose. , contractual freedom and waiver of contractual contracts. , and to exercise any appropriate right on this right, has become the rule in English law. The extent and effect of this freedom of trade and contract are settled by the decision in Mogul S. S. Co. McGregor  A.C. 25, 61 L. J. Q.B.
N. 295, 66 L. T. N. 1, 1, 40 weeks. Rep. 337, 7 Asp. It`s a myth. Case l.
120, 56 J. 101. While it is true that the decision of the House of Lords was promulgated in the case in question shortly after the passage of the Agreements Act, it serves as a reflex to provide an update on the exact state of the law in England at the time of the passage of the Agreements Act. Until 1900, the Standard Oil Trust had expanded from its original base in the east to new oil regions further west. At the same time, a wave of anti-monopoly sentiments swept the United States. Farmers` organisations, trade unions, muckraking journalists and many politicians have attacked combinations such as sugar and tobacco trusts. But they focused on “mother`s confidence,” Standard Oil. “Suffice it to say that, although they admit many of the so-called real estate acquisitions, the creation of the so-called trust of 1882, its dissolution in 1892 and the acquisition of the shares of the various groups by the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey in 1899, they deny all the accusations that justify combinations or conspiracies to contain or monopolize the oil trade; in particular, the so-called Trust of 1882 or the acquisition of the defendants` shares by the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey in 1899 was a combination of independent or competing companies or capital firms. The petition, which respects the means to monopolize the oil trade, is crossed either by a refusal of the alleged acts, or by its purpose, its intention or its effect. Section 2.
That the accused John D. Rockefeller, William Rockefeller, Henry H. Rogers, Henry M. Flagler, John D. Archbold, Oliver H. Payne and Charles M. Pratt, below the seven individual accused who joined the Standard Oil Company and other defendants in forming and implementing this combination, have participated and participated since their inception in implementing and prosecuting it; as defendant Anglo-American Oil Company (Limited), Atlantic Refining Company, Buckeye Pipe Line Company, Borne-Scrymser Company, Chesebrough Manufacturing Company, Consolidated, Cumberland Pipe Line Company, Colonial Oil Company Continental Oil Company, Crescent Pipe Line Company, Henry C. Folger, Jr. and Calvin N. Payne, a co-twinning that is under the name and style of La Corsican , National Transit Company, New York Transit Company, Northern Pipe Line Company, Ohio Oil Company, Prairie Oil – Gas Company, Security Oil Company, Solar Refining Company, Southern Pipe Line Company, Southwest Pennsylvania Pipe Lines Company, Standard Oil Company of California, Standard Oil Company of Indiana, Standard Oil Company of Iowa, Standard Oil Company of Kansas , Standard Oil Company of Kentucky, Standard Oil Company of Nebraska , Standard Oil Company of New York, Standard Oil Company of Ohio, Swan – Finch Company, Union Tank Line Company, Vacuum Oil Company, Washington Oil Company, Waters-Pierce Oil Company, have joined this combination and are active or support the operation; That, by this combination, the defendants mentioned in this section merged, monopolized and continued to monopolize, monopolized and monopolized a substantial portion of trade between states, territories and with foreign nations, between states, territories and with foreign nations, in violation of the Law on Agreements and Abuse of Dominant Position.