Jones v North
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1865 |
| Court | Equity |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
8 cases
-
Norris v Government of the United States of America
...that some of these cases arose on facts different from those of the present case. 10 In the first of the cases, Jones v North (1875) LR 19 Eq 426, four parties were invited to tender for the supply of stone to a public authority. They made a collusive agreement by which one party was to buy......
-
Norris v Government of the United States of America
...view, the authorities to which Mr Gordon took the Court do not, individually or collectively, support that submission. 50 The first was Jones v North (1875) LR 19 Eq 426, a decision of Sir James Bacon VC as to the lawfulness of a bid-rigging agreement between four quarry owners for tenders ......
-
R v GG Plc
...the vendor. Had there been any such agreement, it would have been illegal and unenforceable (see page 648). 32 In Jones v North [1875] LR 19 Eq 426 Sir James Bacon VC described an agreement between quarry owners as very honest and lawful (page 429). Quarry owners agreed a price for stone to......
-
Hksar v Chan Wai Yip And Others
...the House of Lords considered various authorities relating to restrictive trade agreements. The first of which is Jones v North[1875] LR 19 Eq 426: “… four parties were invited to tender for the supply of stone to a public authority. They made a collusive agreement by which one party was to......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Cartel Laws Undermined: Corruption, Social Norms, and Collectivist Business Cultures
...(Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v. McGregor, Gow & Co (1888) 21Q.B.D. 544; (1889) 23; Q.B.D. 598 (C.A.); [1892] A.C. 25).46 Jones v. North (1875) L.R. 19 Eq 426.47 id., p. 429.48 Norris v. Government of the United States of America and others [2008] UKHL 16.49 id., p. 17; conspiracy to defraud is a......
-
Resisting the Long Arm of Criminal Antitrust Laws: Norris v The United States
...running alongside that statu-tory code’.19For them, after reading the relevant sections of the di¡erent pieces10 Jones vNor th (1875) LR 19 Eq 426, 429.11 AttorneyGeneralof the Commonwealth of AustraliavAdelaide Steamship Co Ltd [1913] AC781.i>/i>, 797.13 ibid, relying on Mogul Steamship Co......