BUSL250case全集中英文

旅游巴士英文

Busl250 Final Case 中英概要。

1.Trevey v Grubb (1982)。

winnings in proportion to her contribution.。

2.Balfour v Balfour [1912]。

一对夫妻住在不同的地方,丈夫每月给妻子寄30块钱,后来。

他停止给她钱,她告他,法院判丈夫无罪,这是个Domestic。

arrangement. Because the parities did not intend that they。

should be attended by legal consequences. At the time the。

agreement was made the courts did not consider that the。

marriage had broken down.。

3.Merritt v Merritt [1970]。

丈夫和别的女人在一起了,他承诺她给她一半财产,但是没。

有兑现,法庭认为前妻应该赢,因为 the resumption against。

an intention to create legal relations does not apply when the parties are separated.。

4.Wakeling v Ripley (1951)。

老,他的妹妹和老公住在英国,一个富有的老男人住在澳洲。

男人写信叫妹妹来照顾他,他死后这房子就归他们了,一年。

老男人赶他们走并且不给房子了,法院判老,后他们吵架了。

男人要给,There was ample evidence to indicate that the。

parties did intend to enter into a binding and enforceable。

contract as ‘the consequences for the plaintiffs were so。

serious..’。

5.Teen Ranch Pty Ltd v Brown [1964]。

教会给他提供了住宿和,Brown 在一个非盈利的教会做义工。

伙食,后来他受伤了,他提出工伤补偿,法庭认为他不该得。

到赔偿,There was no evidence of intention to create legal。

relations by the parties and so no contract of employment。

could be said to exist. Brown’s work was voluntary and。

therefore he was not entitled to workers’ compensation.。

6.Edward’s v Skyways [1964]。

航空公司说如果他们的飞行员没工作了,能拿到退休金,结。

果没给,法庭判必须给,The subject of the agreement was。

commercial in nature and there was a meeting of minds—。

an intention. The airline was unable to show that legal。

relations were not intended. There was no evidence to。

show that the transaction was intended to be binding in。

honour only. On the contrary, the words used were。

promissory in nature and there was an enforceable contract。

and the pilot was entitled to the ex gratia payment.。

7.Jones v Vernon’s Pools [1938]。

他把彩票寄去公司领奖,但是公司说,Jones 买彩票中了奖。

没收到,不给钱,法院判公司不必付钱,The clause was。

effective to prevent any action being taken against Vernon’s。

Pools, and the transaction was ‘binding in honour only’。

since it clearly stated that any dealings between the parties。

were not intended to have legal effect.。

8.Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co [1893]。

公司卖smokeball,说闻了味道就不会再生病,一个老太婆。

买了,但是却生病了,她认为公司应该按照广告上的说法。

赔偿她200磅,法庭判公司不必赔钱,The court rejected this。

argument. The $2000 deposited at the bank clearly。

evidenced an intention to pay anyone who performed the。

conditions of the offer and who claimed the money.。

9.Clarke v Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl [1897]。

10.Partridge v Crittenden [1968]。

广告登卖活鸟,结果被人告了,法庭判这个公司无罪,The。

advertisement was only an invitation to treat because。

nowhere was there any indication of an expression of。

intention to be bound. The case was dismissed.。

11.Harrison v Nickerson [1873]。

N登广告说某天要拍卖多少多少东西,H长途跋涉来了,却发。

告N,法庭判N无,现N只auction了一部分东西,怒了。

罪,The advertisement of the auction was not a guarantee。

that it would be held but simply a declaration of intention or。

an invitation to treat and so there was no contract.。

12.Harvey v Facey [1893]。

P给D打电话问“你们那个Bumper Hall Pen卖不卖啊?”D回电。

报说“我们最低要卖900”,P就回了电报说“我愿意出900块买。

那个东西”,但是D拒绝卖,法庭判D无罪,The second。

telegram was merely an indication of the minimum price if。

the defendants ultimately decided to sell, and the third。

telegram was not, therefore, an acceptance but an offer to。

buy. That offer was not accepted and so there was no。

contract.

13.Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash chemists。

[1953]

一个人从药架子上拿下药来,检查人员说药店违法,法庭判。

药店无罪,The display of goods on shelves, even with。

price marked, was an invitation to treat. The offer took place。

when the customer selected the goods from the shelves。

and took them to the pharmacist at the cash register. If the。

pharmacist accepted the money offered by the customer。

and entered the price in the cash register, a contract was。

formed at this point.。

14.Goldsborough Mort & Co Ltd v Quinn (1910)。

15.Dickinson v Dodds [1876]。

Dodds 答应以800块的价格卖房子给Dickinson, Dodds在。

offer中这样写道“可以把房子留到礼拜五早上九。

点”,Dickinson在礼拜四晚上从别处得知Dodds已经把房子。

卖给另外的人了,他try在礼拜四晚上接受offer by giving a。

formal acceptance,法庭判Dodds卖给别人的有效,No。

acceptance had taken place. The offeree had become。

aware of the revocation of the offer from a reliable source。

and therefore the offer had been validly revoked.(the offeree。

must be told before the revocation. If they don’t know, they。

can still accept the offer, it’s legal principal)。

16.Hyde v Wrench [1840]。

D要卖1200,P拒绝了,D又提出要卖1000,P说卖950。

吧,D说不行,P说那就1000吧,法庭认为D可以选择不卖给。

P了,The plaintiff’s actions showed that he intended to。

reject both the defendant’s offers, and this meant that he。

was no longer able to revive them by changing his mind and。

making a subsequent acceptance.。

17. Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co Ltd Montefiore [1866]。

他6月8号提出的,人家在11月23号才答,M想买一些shares。

复同意,他努了说时间拖太久了不买了,法庭认为P是对。

的,The offer to purchase shares had not been accepted。

within a reasonable time and the offer had therefore lapsed.。

Thus there was no contract.。

18. R.v Clarke (1927)。

警方怀疑C是抢劫犯,并向警方说明是某某,C说自己不是。

几个月后C找警方要当初提供线索的rewards,警方不给,说。

他当初是为了给自己洗清,而不是为了rewards才提供线索。

的,The High Court held that C was not entitled to recover。

the reward, because, while he was aware of it, he had no。

intention of claiming the reward at the time he complied with。

the offer. He was intent only on saving himself from the。

charge.

19. Felthouse v Bindley (1862)。

他给侄子offer说要买马,F想买他侄子的那匹马,并且说“如果侄子不回话,那就默认了那匹马以40块的价格卖给F。

了”,他侄子没回话,同意把马卖给F,侄子卖庄园的时候。

对买主B说,把马留着,因为那匹马已经是别人的了,B后来。

F就告B侵犯他财产,法庭认为B无,错误的把马给卖了。

罪,The nephew’s acceptance had not been。

communicated to the uncle. The horse did not therefore。

belong to him. (silence dose not amount to acceptance of。

an offer)

20. Powell v Lee (1908)。

学校全体理事会经过商议,理事会里一个人,P申请做学校校长,决定接受他,但是没有立即将这个结果告诉P,是P。

的好友,他私下告诉了P这个好消息,悲剧的是,理事会后。

来又改了主意,任命另外一个人为校长了,法庭认为理事会。

是无辜的,There was no contract. Powell’s offer had not。

been accepted as the resolution was not communicated by。

anyone with authority.。

21. Tinn v Hoffman & Co (1873)。

22. Adams v Lindsell (1818)。

23. Roscorla v Thomas [1842]。

T,R从T那里买了一匹马,交易结束后他问T这匹马有没有劣行,咬不咬人。

说不咬人,R回家后被马咬了,法庭判T无罪,The seller’s。

promise was not binding. It was make after the sale had。

been completed and the buyer had given nothing in return。

for it. The buyer couldn’t rely on the prior sale to support。

the new promise as it was past consideration.。

24. Anderson v Glass [1869]。

Glass承诺说会给员工高工资,不管是以后的,还是过去的。

那段时间,后来他又反悔了,法庭认为他不必付以前的。

了,但是以后的钱是要给滴,The promise to pay。

increased wages with respect to the work already done。

was not binding because it was past consideration. The。

work had already been performed by Anderson and paid。

for by Glass, and as this was the only consideration。

Anderson could provide, his claim for the past period。

failed. The promise of future wages was enforceable。

because Anderson could provide consideration here.。

25. Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615)。

他请L帮忙从国王那里讨个赦免,L就专程去了趟London,B杀了人,帮B弄到了一个特赦,事成之后,B承诺会付100。

给L,L就把B给告了,结果没付,法庭认为该给,A contract。

existed, as the request for L services by B and the。

performance of those services, coupled with a subsequent。

promise to pay, were all part of the same transaction.。

26. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge & Co [1915]。

27. Coulls v Bagot’s Executor and Trustee Co (1967)。

一个丈夫允许采矿公司在自己的地上开采,开采,作为回报。

公司给他开采使用权的钱,丈夫死后,他妻子对这些合约并。

不熟悉,开采公司趁机不给钱了,这个妻子试着去延续这个。

合约,法庭认为妻子应该拿到钱,The High Court held that。

while consideration must move from the promisee, where。

the promise is made to promisees jointly, consideration。

need only move from them for the promise to be。

enforceable. Thus, she was entitled to the royalty。

payments.

28. Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council [1925]。

矿工不满意工作环境,造反了,矿主找来警察维护秩序,几。

星期后矿主收到信,要付钱给警察,他不同意付钱,法庭认。

为他应该付,The police had provided protection over and。

above what they considered effective and this was sufficient。

consideration to support the promise of payment by the。

mine owners.。

29. Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1990]。

Williams是P,他答应D会在一定时间内完成某某工程,但是。

中途遇到经济困难,他向P提出,如果D能给extra money,才。

D答应了,因为D如果不在一定时间内交,能按时完成工程。

货,那么D的雇主就会罚D的钱,后来P加班加点完成了任。

D却不欲给那答应的extra money,法庭判D必须给,务。

钱,The defendant’s promise was enforceable. There was。

commercial benefit for the defendant in having the work。

completed on tome and this amounted to sufficient。

consideration.。

30. Stilk v Myrick [1809]。

一群水手和船长签约,从伦敦去往波罗的海并返回,中途逃。

跑了两个水手,船长找不到代替的人,就对剩下的人说,只。

要你们把船安全驶回伦敦,我把那两个水手的钱分给你们。

水手们同意了,船回到伦敦后,船长不兑现诺言,法庭判船。

长不必给钱,The sailors had undertaken to do all they。

could under the normal conditions of the voyage to bring the。

ship safely to port. The desertion of the two seamen did not。

extend the remaining seamen’s existing contractual duty, so。

there was no new donsideration.。

31. Hartley v Ponsonby (1871)。

下了一半的船员,船长对剩下的一般说跟他回伦敦的话,就。

给extra money,船员就努力工作把船开回了伦敦,船长拒绝。

给钱,法庭判船长必须给钱,Sailing the ship back to。

London in an unseaworthy condition was more than the。

original contract required. The promise of extra wages was。

supported by good consideration.。

32. Hirachand v Punamchand v Temple [1911]。

一个医生的爸爸替儿子还钱,爸爸只能先还,但是数目太多。

一小部分,爸爸在信封里装了小部分的支票给债主寄去,债。

主把支票换成钱后,又找那个医生要剩余的钱,法庭判债主。

不能这样做,The creditor could not maintain the action。

because to do so would in effect be a fraud on the third。

party. The third party had paid the smaller sum in the belief。

that its acceptance discharged the debtor’s liability to the。

creditor.

33. Hercules Motors Pty Ltd v Schubert (1953)。

S买了一辆车,用了一段时间后发现油漆有问题,就找厂家。

H,厂家答应重新漆,并且保证会把车子弄得像新的一样。

而且会有个喷漆厂的代表监督厂家喷漆,结果专家的的意见。

是喷漆不合格,S就要告这个H厂,法庭认为H无罪,There。

was a genuine dispute between the parties and that the。

agreement to repaint the car was a compromise of that。

dispute. The compromise was good consideration for a new。

contract.

34. Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd [1947]。

在1939年的时候,plaintiff从defendant那里租来了一些。

flats,他们约定好的租金是2500每个月,后来发生了战争。

租来的房子基本都是空闲的,所以plaintiff没钱付房租了,他。

和defendant重新预定了一下,在战争期间,租金减为1250.。

战争结束后,房东找他要1945年最后两个季度拖欠的房。

租,Denning J held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover。

the last two quarters of rental. Then, by the way of obiter he。

suggested that the defendant did not have to pay the。

arrears from the time of the agreed reduction in 1940 up to。

the time when the flats were again fully let in 1945 despite。

the fact that the defendant had the full entitlement. The。

plaintiff was prevented from going back on his promise to。

reduce the rental as this would have been unfair on the。

defendant.。

35. Giumelli v Giumelli (1999)。

Giumelli是农场主,是父亲,他儿子15岁,儿子想去上学想。

修文凭,爸爸不同意,说留在农场帮他的话,就等他21岁的。

时候就把半个农场给他,儿子留下来了,可是到21岁的时。

候,父亲反悔了不给农场了,儿子告爸爸,、。

36. Walton Stores (Interstate) v Maher (1988)。

37. Pritchard v Merchants and tradesman Mutual Life Assurance Society (1858)。

一个人有life ensurance,这个人死后,他的兄弟不知道,他。

兄弟一直在帮他交这个保险金,公司也不知道他死了,一直。

在收钱,法院判公司该把钱退了,The beneficiary was not。

entitled to recover under the policy. While the premium was。

paid and accepted upon an implied understanding on both。

sides that the party insured was alive, both parties were。

labouring under a mistake. Thus, the transaction was void.。

38. Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864)。

一个人要从一艘船上买cotton on Monday,在礼拜四的时候来。

了一艘相同名字的船,这船原来定好了是要卖给一个礼拜三。

来的人的,这是一个mutual mistake. The contract was void。

ab initio because a reasonable person would have been。

unable to determine which ship the parties referred to.。

39. Taylor v Johnson (1983)。

一个人要卖四亩地,说好是15000,合约也写好了,他却不。

同意卖了,他说一开始说好的就是这块地每亩15000,而不。

是一共15000,法庭说合同void,The high court found that。

the evidence led to the inference that Taylor was aware that。

circumstances existed which suggested that Johnson was。

acting under a serious mistake or misapprehension about。

either the terms or the subject matter of the transaction. As。

Taylor had not materially altered his position and no third。

party rights were affected, Johnson was entitled in equity to。

an order rescinding the contract.。

40. Petelin v Cullen (1975)。

41. Esso Petroleum Co v Mardon [1976]。

他请教了专家,专家预测说肯定赚,M想去建一个加油站。

于是他就和一个澳洲公司签约,由公司提供汽油,后来亏。

了,这个是misrepresentation. The statement of the expert。

were factual statements on a crucial matter make by。

someone who professed to and did have special knowledge。

and skill, which were intended to and did induce Mardon to。

enter into a lease. As such, they amounted to contractual。

warranties, furthermore, the circumstances were such that。

the statements of the expert placed upon them a duty to。

exercise reasonable care to ensure that the representations。

were correct. That duty of care was held to exist both prior。

to and after the signing of the contract in relation to those。

representations. Accordingly, Esso was liable for the breach。

of duty of care for the negligent misrepresentations to。

Mardon concerning petrol sales, though the damages。

recoverable would be the same, whether assessed by。

reference to tortious or contractual liability.。

42. Universial Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation [1983]。

一个人把船锁上,威胁船长若不给钱就不放船,他们签了给。

钱协定,后来这个船长告这个人duress,As the defendants。

did not dispute that their actions amounted to economic。

duress, the contract was void and the plaintiff were entitled。

to their money back.。

43. Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983)。

一对意大利老夫妻英文不好也缺少教育,commercial bank告。

诉他们要把他们的房子作为他们儿子公司的财产保证,他们。

儿子说这个担保是50000刀,儿子说公司状况很,为期6个月。

好,后来老两口去签约的时候,银行人把期限改了,没跟他。

们说就催着他们把合约签了,他们儿子的公司倒闭了,银行。

来要房子,老两口想撤销合约,It was held by a majority of。

the high court that a court in exercising its equitable。

jurisdiction could set aside a transaction if it was。

unconscionable, which in this case it was, for the bank to。

rely on the mortgage/guarantee. The bank was in a superior。

bargaining position to the Amadios as it knew the financial。

position of the son and also that the parents did not fully。

understand what it was that they were entering into, the。

parents were, in fact, in a position of special disadvantage。

because they did not understand the extent of their liability。

under the agreement. Nor did the parents understand the。

financial position of their son’s company, which was being。

propped up by the bank. Essentially there was an abuse by。

the bank of its superior bargaining position in its dealings。

with the Amadios.。

44. Louth v Diprose (1992)。

男人要把钱讨回来,男人很爱女人,女人不太爱这个男人,给了她一笔钱,女人被从公寓里赶出来,男人帮了她,一对情侣,后来二人分手,法庭认为这是一种新的special disadvantage: emotional attachment. The high court held that Louth’s conduct was considered to be unconscionable and the house was ordered to be transferred to Diprose,. She had exploited his emotional。

dependence on her using the false crisis about the eviction to her advantage.-。

45. Pavey & Matthews v Paul (1987)。

一个builder与人口头协议帮人建房子,建到一半的时候客户。

不愿意付钱了,这个builder告他的客户,The High Court。

held that the quantum meruit claim was based on restitution。

or unjust enrichment because of the client’s acceptance of。

the benefits from the builder’s performance of the。

unenforceable oral contract. To allow the defendants to。

escape payment because the contract was not in writing。

would be to confer an unjust enrichment upon them.。

46. Planche v Colburn (1831)。

47. Kane Constructions Pty Ltd v Sopov [2005]。

Sopov在墨尔本city有一个废弃的boilerhouse,他想找人把它。

重建成一个能住宿和经商的房地产区,Kena竞标成功,在开。

工一年后,也就是超过了原先约定的完工时间的时候,S拒。

绝再付钱,建筑商就停止了做工,When an innocent party。

to a contract is faced with a repudiation by the other party。

and decides to terminate in response, they have a choice of。

either suing for damages for breach of contract or using on。

the quantum meruit. Where they choose the latter, they are。

obliged to prove the value of the work, that the work was。

completed with proper skill, and that it was completed within。

a reasonable time. The quantum meruit claim is assessed。

only on the basis of work actually done and does not。

include a profit margin!。

48. David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992)。

DS从commonwealth 那里借来了￥850000,这笔钱按外汇。

牌价来算,在1980s的时候,利息高得致使公司出现了经济。

他们以给错了钱为理由,希望能把付出的钱拿点回,困难。

来,The High Court held that there should be no distinction。

between recovery as a result of mistake of fact and mistake。

of law where it could be shown that one party was。

becoming unjustly enriched at the expense of the mistaken。

party.

49. Sumpter v Hedges [1898]。

由P帮D建两幢房子,P与D定了合约,在建好了大约一半的。

没法继续建下去了,于是D就自己建完了房,时候P没钱了。

子,The contract was entire, not divisible, and so the。

plaintiff could not recover under it. Furthermore, the fact that。

the plaintiff was unable to complete the job was not the fault。

of the defendant and so there was no entitlement to a。

quantum meruit. While the defendant obtained a benefit, ot。

did not constitute acceptance of partial performance in this。

case.

50. Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation (1991)。

政府想提高军备,就和一家公司签了2年的合约,预计在前6。

个月里,6个月过去后很明显,公司必须完成购买和改造飞机。

这家公司没有完成任务,于是政府自行终止了合同,但是合。

约中提到了一点,若哪一方要终止合同,必须通知另一方。

给另一方提出反驳的机会,很显然政府没有这样做,The。

High Court held that, in the circumstances, regard must be。

had for the expenditure incurred by Amann in purchasing。

and equipping the planes in anticipation of performing its。

duties under the contract. As a result, the court awarded。

Amann$6.6 million ‘reliance damages’ for its wasted。

expenditure in acquiring and equipping the aircraft for the。

contract.

51. Jarvis v Swan Tours [1972]。

J在S那里看到介绍去瑞士旅游的小册子,很吸引人,于是他。

就去旅游两周,不幸的是小手册里很多都是虚假内。

容,Jarvis was entitled to damages for disappointment。

caused by the breach. The holiday did not live up to the。

promises that were contained in the defendant’s brochures.。

52. Jackson v Horizon Holidays [1975]。

53. Baltic Shipping v Dillion (1993)。

D乘船,结果8天以后船出意外了,沉了,她受伤了,她提出。

全额赔偿,On appeal, the High Court held that where the。

object of a contract was to provide enjoyment and。

relaxation, if that object was not achieved then damages。

would be available for disappointment and distress. The。

damage claimed was a direct result of the breach and。

remoteness was not an issue.。

54. Howe v Teefy (1927)。

D原定租给P一匹赛马3年,D把马拿了回,但是6个月后。

P就告D断了他未来赢钱的财路,陪审团认为P该得到赔,来。

偿,D不服又上诉,The plaintiff was entitled to recover。

damages for potential loss of prize and profits he could。

have made.。

55. Charter v Sullivan [1957]。

S和C签合约,S买C的车子,C就告,后来S又不愿意买了。

他,说如果不是他,自己就能赚钱了,While there was a。

breach of contract, Charter was not entitled to ordinary。

damages because he could not show any loss, but he was。

entitled to nominal damages for the breach.。

56. Miller v Gunther and Others [2005]。

Gunther拥有一家房产公司,同时他是个牧师,他有一大堆。

萨摩那来的信徒,这些信徒英语不好,又缺少教育,但是他。

们很信任Gunther,Gunther就低价买进一些不好的房子,高。

价卖给那些个信徒们,Miller是个律师,她告Gunther。

unconscionable conduct. The Supreme Court of。

Queensland held that Gunther had engaged in。

unconscionable conduct in regard to the transactions.。

57. ACCC V Keshow [2005]。

Keshow卖儿童教育材料,因为这些家长缺少教育,所以很多。

时候即使这些材料不合适,keshow也怂恿他们继续买,而且。

还怂恿他们用一种无限制的payment去买,这样K就能源源不。

断地收到钱了,The Federal Court held that Keshow had。

breached s51AB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in respect。

to unconscionable conduct.。

58. Henjo Investments v Collins Marrickville (1988)。

H有一家餐厅,餐厅的位子不能多于84个,当地的规定是。

而且酒水吧台不可以放座位招待客人,但是H开业后,人气。

很旺,他就加了很多座位,连吧台的地方也加座了,C这个。

人就想买这家餐厅,买的时候H告诉了他关于座位的事情,C。

没在意,交易正式完成后,C才恍然大悟貌似吃亏了,于是C。

就以Trade Practices Act上告,The Full Court of the Federal。

Court held that silence can constitute misleading and。

deceptive conduct when the circumstances give rise to。

disclosing relevant facts. This duty to disclose is not。

negated merely because inquiries that would have。

disclosed the true position could have been made.。

59. Hoover (Aust) v Email Ltd (1991)。

H和E公司都生产洗衣机,E公司做了一个video送到了各个卖。

场那里叫人家播放,在video里,E的洗衣机工作非常出。

H的洗衣机就像发疯了一样,实际上video里的H洗衣机,色。

这事被H发现后,H状告E. The,是被做了手脚。

advertisement was misleading because it omitted material。

that would have been necessary for the viewer to be able to。

make an informed decision about the comparative merits of。

each machine—in this case, how the machines would have。

compared if ‘real’ washing had been used.。

60. Colgate- Palmolive Pty Ltd v Rexona (1981)。

在R公司推销自己的新牙膏时,夸自己的牙膏比澳洲最好的。

牙膏还要有效百分之50到90,于是这个公司的主要竞争者—。

Colgate就站出来说你的广告违反了s52,The tests relied。

upon by Rexona to support its claims were largely。

unpublished and had not been independently assessed by。

the dental profession. Section 52 was therefore breached。

and the company was ordered to withdraw its。

advertisements.。

61. Everready Australia PTY LTD v Gillette Australia PTY LTD [2000]。

太长了

62. Pacific Dunlop LTD v Hogan (1989)。

Hogan是个有名的电视剧演员,主演了Crocodile Dundee.。

Pacific Dunlop 生产了一种鞋子并为之做了广告,但是这个。

广告很明显得借鉴了那部Hogan的主演作品,The Full Court。

of the Federal Court held that a significant section of。

viewers could be misled into believing that a commercial。

arrangement had been entered into between Hogan and。

Pacific Dunlop. This amounted to both misleading and。

deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act and。

passing off.。

63. Taco Company of Australia INC v Taco Bell PTY LTD (1982)。

一个名叫Taco Bell的澳洲饭店已经经营了好几年了,最近一。

个美国的连锁快餐店也起了这个相同的名字,The Fedral。

Court found in favour of the Australian company Taco Bell。

Pty Ltd.

64. McWilliams Wines PTY LTD v McDonalds System of Australia (1982)。

众所周知麦当劳的BIG MAC,但是最近McWilliams Wines这。

个公司出产了一种2L的酒,名字恰好也叫BIG MAC,麦当劳。

告他违反了s52（1）,The Full Court of the Federal Court。

held that the use of the words ‘Big Mac’ by McWilliams。

Wines might cause confusion in the minds of some。

consumers as to whether there was a connection between。

the two companies; however, such a person would not be。

misled by the advertisement into believing that there was。

such a connection. Thus, there was no breach of s52(1) . 65. Miller v Fiona’s Clothes Horse of Centrepoint PTY LTD (1989)。

Fiona这个女人自己做衣服卖,她的衣服标签很多都是错误。

的,比如说产地啊质地啊,而且买了她家的衣服不能退。

货,Court held that in fixing a penalty it was relevant to。

have regard to the volume of the defendant’s business and。

the conduct of the defendant overall. The matters pleaded。

in mitigation were relevant but were overridden by the。

circumstances of the case. In fining the store a total of。

$15000, the court emphasised that penalties for。

contravention of consumer protection legislation should be。

a deterrent to the defendant and to others.。

66. Parkdale Custom Built Furniture PTY LTD v Puxu PTY LTD (1982)。

Parkdale 和Puxu都生产家具和日常西服,可Parkdale家的东。

西几乎和Puxu家的东西很像很像,虽然有不同的标签,虽然。

仔细看的话的确是能看出不同,但是parkdale的标签随便就。

能塞进垫衬里或者移走,The High Court held that the。

conduct of Parkdale did not infringe s52(1) merely because。

it caused consumers to wonder whether both products were。

made by the same manufacturer. The goods were properly。

labelled.

67. Clarke Equipment Australia LTD v Covcat PTY LTD (1987)。

上诉人都因为被口头告知和看过那个宣传小册,上面说这个。

砍树的机器在森林里每天能砍**棵树,被告就和他们签了合。

约把机器租给他们用,他们之后才发现不是那么回事,这个。

机器很烂,The Full Court of the Australian Federal Court。

held that both the oral representations and the statements。

in the brochure by the appellants about the capabilities of。

the machine were such that they had contravened s52.。

68. Hartnell v Sharp Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd (1975)。

Sharp公司扬言每个夏普微波炉都经过Standards Association。

并且在宣传手册上都这么说,也影印上了,of Australia检测。

SAA的图标与认证号,实际上呢,这些是false。

statements,The Full Court of Australian Industrial Court。

held that the company had falsely represented that the。

goods were of a particular standard when they were not and。

so were in breach of s 53(a).。

69. Tooth & Co v Laws (1888)。

Law把自己的hotel卖给了别人,他答应别人仍然可以把印有。

他名字的营业许可证挂在门口,谁知这个买者人品很恶劣。

法庭判Law要为钱,卖酒的就把Law告了,进了酒后不给钱。

负责,Laws was liable to pay for the liquor supplied。

because by allowing his name to remain over the front door。

of the hotel as licensee, he was representing to the public。

that he was still the owner. Thus it was possible to infer that。

the new purchasers were his agent.。

70. Panorama Developments (Guilford) Ltd v Fidelis Furnishings Fabrics [1971]。

一个公司的小秘书租了车,他对租车公司说公司会付,私用。

钱的,后来租车公司找company要钱,不给,法庭判。

company必须给,The company had to pay because the。

secretary appeared to have authority to enter into the hiring。

arrangement though he did not have actual or implied。

authority.。

71. Mitor Investments Pty Ltd v General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp [1984]。

一个客户给自己的房子买保险,他对业务员说要保风暴和洪。

水,几年后发洪水把他房子毁了,他去找保险公司要钱,保。

险公司不给,不包括因龙卷风,说他签的那个防洪水的保险。

引起的海洋水灾,法庭判保险公司得给钱,The broker was。

held liable by the Supreme Court of Western Australia for。

the loss suffered by the client because of the failure to。

exercise reasonable care and skill when carrying out the。

client’s instructions.。