Section — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
§ III. On Monopoly
- Monopoly is the power of selling existing in the hands of one or of a few only; or it is a manner of acting by which one or several bring it about that they alone sell or buy something. One kind is legal, which is granted by public authority from a reasonable cause; another private, which is exercised by the work of one or of several merchants.
I say I. A legal monopoly is lawful, provided it is made with a just price. The reason is that, on account of a just cause of the public good, the Prince can grant it as a privilege, or for exacting tribute from merchants.
I say II. A private monopoly is illicit in the following cases: 1. if a merchant impedes by fraud or a lie that other goods be brought in, so that he himself may sell his goods more dearly with common detriment; 2. if one or a few buy all the goods, so that afterwards they may sell them more dearly; 3. if workmen or craftsmen agree that they will not teach their art except for an unjust price, or that no one will complete a work begun by others. - St. Lig. n. 815.
- Questions. - Q. 1. Whether merchants sin against justice and charity who conspire not to sell their goods except at the highest, although just, price?
Resp. 1. As to justice, there is a twofold probable opinion.
I. OPINION affirms it, because merchants of this kind by an unjust means compel others to buy at the highest price. - Laymann, etc.
II. OPINION, the more probable, denies it, because if others are compelled to buy at the highest price, they are not compelled by the sellers, but by their own necessity, which cannot be called true coercion on the part of the sellers. - St. Lig. n. 817. - Lugo, etc. 1.
1 Cardinal De Lugo nevertheless notes two things (Disp. 26, nn. 172 and 173). The first is that these things hold unless, however, someone of those merchants is impeded by others through force, deceit, or fear from selling the goods at a cheaper price. For injury is done to buyers when other sellers are unjustly impeded from selling at a cheaper price.
The other regards rightly finding this just measure of the highest price. For, to use the words of De Lugo, concerning this there seems to be a difficulty: how that highest just price must be understood, in which merchants conspire without injustice; namely, whether it is the same highest just price which would exist if the monopoly were not made, or rather that which, with that difficulty and conspiracy of sellers supposed, would be estimated as just. For it seems that that conspiracy cannot be made without the just price by that very fact being varied, since the justice of the price is taken from the facility and abundance, or difficulty and rarity, of sellers. Nevertheless, the answer is that, without doubt, it is understood in the first sense, concerning the highest just price at which, with that monopoly set aside, those goods would be sold, and thus the aforesaid Doctors suppose, namely those who stand for this negative opinion; for the just price ought not to be taken from the state introduced by the monopoly itself, but from the state which, with it set aside, the goods would have; the reason for which we will give immediately.
Resp. 2. As to charity, affirmatively, because although you are not obliged by charity to sell below the highest price, nevertheless you seem to be obliged not to dissuade others from selling at a lower price. Thus, although you are not bound by charity to give alms to such a poor man, nevertheless you are prohibited from dissuading others, if there are any who wish to give it: therefore by parity... - St. Lig. ibid.
- Q. 2. Whether merchants sin against justice or against charity who, at the time of harvest or vintage, buy all the wheat or wine of the region at the cheap price then current, so that afterwards they may sell more dearly?
Resp. 1. Negatively, more probably, as it seems, as to justice, provided they do not sell above the highest price which would be current with the monopoly set aside. The reason is that they violate the right of no one. - Thus Lugo. - St. Lig. n. 817.
Resp. 2. Negatively also, probably, as to charity, provided they do not induce others to sell more dearly, nor themselves sell above the highest price which, with the monopoly cut away, would have place, because they use their own right; for no one is bound to neglect his own advantage in order to avoid another's damage, when he is not obliged to avert it. - Lugo. - Lessius, etc., against others.
Q. 3. Whether, once a monopoly has been made with an unjust price by some merchants, it is lawful for others to sell goods at the same price?
Resp. Negatively, because a price increased by injustice always remains unjust, and should not be called common estimation, but fraud and deception. - Thus commonly with St. Lig. n. 817. - See Cases, n. 958 and following.