ON 15 AUGUST 1876, the UK Parliament enacted the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.
The Act amended the Cruelty to Animals Act 1849, extending it to animal experiments by licensing and regulating scientific animal experiments and prohibiting such experiments that are painful.
1300 00 2088
ON 1 NOVEMBER 1873, the United Kingdom Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 commenced.
ON 17 JULY 1868, the House of Lords delivered Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 (17 July 1868).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1868/1.html
An occupier may be liable for the harm caused by dangerous substances or activities on his or her premises under the principles of strict liability.
In Australia, the decision has been overturned by Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd [1994] HCA 13; (1994) 179 CLR 520; (1994) Aust Torts Reports 81-264; (1994) 120 ALR 42; (1994) 68 ALJR 331 (24 March 1994).
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 1858, Jack Armstrong, represented by a young Abraham Lincoln, was found not guilty of murder in the Cass County Circuit Court case of People v Armstrong.
A witness claimed to have observed the alleged unlawful act by the light of the moon. Lincoln discredited the witness by producing an almanac showing there was insufficient moonlight that particular night and as a result his client was acquitted.
ON THIS DAY in 1858, Torrens Title was introduced under the South Australian Real Property Act 1858.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/num_act/rpa16o22v1858255
ON 6 MARCH 1857, the US Supreme Court delivered Dred Scott v Sandford 60 US 393 (1857).
https://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html
The US Supreme Court ruled that slaves African ancestry were not citizens under the US Constitution.
The decision caused outrage and was a significant event leading up to the election of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War from 1861 to 1865.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 23 FEBRUARY 1854, the Court of Exchequer Chamber delivered Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC Exch J70
(1854) 9 Ex Ch 341; 156 ER 145 (23 February 1854).
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Exch/1854/J70.html
The decision lays down the rule for assessing damages for breach of contract. There are two limbs: (1) losses which “may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself”; or (2) losses which “may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it”.
Per Alderson B:
“Now we think the proper rule is such as the present is this: Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it. Now, if the special circumstances under which the contract was actually made where communicated by the plaintiffs to the defendants, and thus known to both parties, the damages resulting from the breach of such a contract, which they would reasonably contemplate, would be the amount of injury which would ordinarily follow from a breach of contract under these special circumstances so known and communicated. But, on the other hand, if these special circumstances were wholly unknown to the party breaking the contract, he, at the most, could only be supposed to have had in his contemplation the amount of injury which would arise generally, and in the great multitude of cases not affected by any special circumstances, from such a breach of contract. For such loss would neither have flowed naturally from the breach of this contract in the great multitude of such cases occurring under ordinary circumstances, nor were the special circumstances, which, perhaps, would have made it a reasonable and natural consequence of such breach of contract, communicated to or known by the defendants. The Judge ought, therefore, to have told the jury, that, upon the fats then before them, they ought not to take the loss of profits into consideration at all in estimating the damages. There must therefore be a new trial in this case.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
8 JUNE 1847, the Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted the Factory Act 1847, also known as the Ten Hour Bill.
Women and children could only work 63 hours per week as of 1 July 1847 and 58 hours per week, or 10 hours per week, as of 1 May 1848.
1300 00 2088
ON 26 AUGUST 1846, the UK Parliament passed the Fatal Accidents Act 1846, also known as Lord Campbell’s Act.
Close relatives of a person killed by the wrongdoing of another were entitled by this Act to recover damages that the common law did not previously allow. The provision has been legislated in common law jurisdictions around the world. The Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW) introduced similar provisions in New South Wales.
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 