ON 5 DECEMBER 1933, Prohibition on alcohol was abolished by the passing into law of the 21st amendment to the US Constitution which repealed the 18th amendment.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 18 AUGUST 1933, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant [1933] HCA 35; (1933) 50 CLR 387 (18 August 1933).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1933/35.html
Per Dixon J at 418:
‘The condition that goods are of merchantable quality requires that they should be in such an actual state that a buyer fully acquainted with the facts and, therefore, knowing what hidden defects exist and not being limited to their apparent condition would buy them without abatement of the price obtainable for such goods if in reasonably sound order and condition and without special terms.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 1933, the democratically elected German Reichstag and Reichsrat passed the Enabling Act which effectively handed all power over to Hitler’s executive arm of government.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 1933, US Congress passed the Beer and Wine Revenue Act 1933 which relaxed prohibition in the United States.
ON 26 MAY 1932, the House of Lords delivered Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562; [1932] UKHL 100 (26 May 1932).
ww.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html
Mrs Donoghue suffered shock and severe gastro enteritis after consuming a bottle of ginger beer which contained the decomposed remains of a snail. The bottle had been purchased by her friend. She sought damages from the manufacturer without having a contractual relationship with them.
Mrs Donoghue was awarded damages as the court ruled that the manufacturer owed her a duty to take reasonable care and that duty existed independently of the contract.
The case established the tort of negligence.
Per Lord Atkin:
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 11 DECEMBER 1931, the Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/4/introduction
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poteoa1997455
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Kilminster v Sun Newspapers Limited [1931] HCA 37; (1931) 46 CLR 284 (23 November 1931).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/46clr284.html
1300 00 2088
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 16 MARCH 1931 the High Court of Australia delivered Attorney-General (NSW) v Trethowan [1931] HCA 3; (1931) 44 CLR 394 ( 16 March 1931).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1931/3.htm
In 1929, the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) was amended with the enactment of s7A, which contained a manner and form provision that a bill for the abolition of the NSW upper house (Legislative Council) could not be presented to the Governor for Royal Assent unless the bill was passed by both houses of the state parliament and then approved by a popular referendum.
In 1931, both houses passed a bill for the abolition of s7A and a bill for the abolition of the Legislative Council. The bill for the abolition of the Legislative Council was not approved by popular referendum.
Before the bills could be presented to the Governor for Royal Assent, Trethowan and another councillor obtained a decree from the NSW Supreme Court which in effect restrained the Government from presenting the bills to the Governor. The persons restrained (the defendants) included the NSW Attorney-General, the President of the Legislative Council, the Premier and the other Ministers of the Crown for NSW.
The High Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by the defendants, upholding the validity and binding effect of s7A.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 8 AUGUST 1929, the Supreme Court of NSW delivered Municipal Council of Mosman v Spain & Ors [1929] NSWStRp 45; (1929) 29 SR (NSW) 492 (8 August 1929).
The court held that the land at Taronga Zoo was exempt from rates.
The court also held that the failure of a person to appeal a rates decision does not render him or her liable to pay the rates over land which is wrongly rated.
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 