English laws on the control of monopolies and restrictive practices were in force long before the Norman Conquest.  The Domesday Book reported that « Foresteel » (i.e., prefiguration, the practice of buying goods before they were put on the market and then inflating prices) was one of the three effects that King Edward the Confessor could accomplish through England.  However, the concern for fair prices has also led to attempts at direct market regulation. In 1266, a law was promulgated by Henry III to determine the prices of bread and ale in accordance with the prices of cereals set by the Assizes. Among the offending sentences were Amercements, Pranger and Tumbrel.  A fourteenth-century statute called foremen « oppressors of the poor and the community in general and enemies of the whole country. »  Under King Edward III. the Workers` Statute of 1349 fixed the wages of craftsmen and workers and ordered that foodstuffs be sold at reasonable prices. In addition to existing penalties, traders envision in the law that enraged merchants must pay the victim double the amount they received, an idea that, under U.S. antitrust laws, has repeated in triple punitive damages.
Also under Edward III, the following legal provision prohibited trade association.  The act aims to prevent the practices of parties who have AAEC in India. This can guarantee free trade and would protect the interests of all parties, including consumers. However, such an objective could only be achieved if the parties doing business followed the principles set out in the law. For parties doing business in India, it is important to monitor the maintenance of anti-competitive elements in agreements between them. Companies should be proactive and conscientiously tasked with identifying existing anti-competitive elements arising from their current agreements. Staff can be trained to understand and avoid the effects of anti-competitive agreements. If necessary, people and companies can always call on experts who can lead them to a safer option.
According to the laissez-faire doctrine, anti-cartel legislation is considered unnecessary, as competition is seen as a dynamic long-term process in which companies compete for a dominant position. In some markets, a company may successfully dominate, but it is due to superior skills or innovation. However, according to laissez-faire theorists, it creates profitable competitive opportunities for others by trying to raise prices to take advantage of its monopoly position. It begins a process of creative destruction that undermines the monopoly. Therefore, the government should not try to break the monopoly, but to make the market work.  The Section 3 Act also prohibits any agreement between companies in: any violation of antitrust laws is a blow to the free trade regime provided by Congress. This system depends on strong competition for its health and vitality, and strong competition in turn depends on compliance with anti-cartel rules. With the passage of these laws, Congress had many ways to sanction violations. Offenders could have been asked, for example, to compensate the federal, regional and local governments for the estimated damage caused by the offences those to their respective economies.
But this means was not retained. Instead, Congress decided to allow all people to claim their actual harm three times, whenever they were violated by a breach of conspiracy in their affairs or property.