INDEX

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 - Case

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 by Lawprof Team In shop: First-class Oxford tort law notes Law has never been this simple Go to shop Key points Manufacturers are

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 - Case Summary

2024.1.4  Australian Knitting Mills and John Martin Co. filed an appeal in the High Court, arguing that the duty to care articulated in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson,

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills - WikiMili

2023.12.25  Grant v Australian Knitting Mills is a landmark case in consumer and negligence law from 1935, holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer

从“买方谨慎”到“卖方谨慎”—谈英国货物买卖法下的默示 ...

2005.3.23  货物是否可接受也许太抽象了，商业实践中货物价格往往更能说明问题。 因此，澳大利亚高等法院迪克森法官(Dixon J) 首次在Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 2 - CaseMine

Richard Thorold Grant Appellant v. Australian Knitting Mills, Limited, and others Respondents FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS

Legum Case Brief: Grant v Australian Knitting Mills

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 Material Facts: The claimant bought underwear from the defendant for his use and suffered skin irritation and eventually

Case Summary: Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 1936 ac 85

2023.7.7  In the case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 1936 ac 85, it was held that manufacturers were liable in negligence caused to a consumer by latent defects in their

Volume 50 July 1987 No. 4 - JSTOR

2 Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd. [1936] A.C. 85, 90 (per Lord Wright). 3 [1932] A.C. 562. In fact, the dates mentioned in the quotation precede the date of the judgment in

The Adaptability of the Common Law to Change - High

2020.4.20  purchaser of the product. This decision was applied the following year in Australia in . Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant. 5. Cases such as these serve to remind

Richard Thorold Grant v. Australian Knitting Mill, Ltd. AIR

2023.11.28  Richard Thorold Grant v. Australian Knitting Mill, Ltd. AIR 1936 PC 34 « » 28-Nov-2023 Tags: Sale of Goods Act, 1930 Privy Council Introduction The present case

Volume 50 July 1987 No. 4 - JSTOR

2 Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd. [1936] A.C. 85, 90 (per Lord Wright). 3 [1932] A.C. 562. In fact, the dates mentioned in the quotation precede the date of the judgment in Donoghue. The dates that confirm the relevance of Donoghue as an authority in Grant are those of the Privy Council hearing in Grant, to be found at [1936]

Richard Thorold Grant v. Australian Knitting Mill, Ltd. AIR

2023.11.28  The court held that retailers were liable for a breach of implied warranty or condition under Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1895 of South Australia. This section is similar to Section 14 of the English Sale of Goods Act, 1893. The court said that damage suffered was attributed to the negligent or improper way in which the manufacturers ...

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills - Studocu

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 (Lord Wright’s entire judgment) Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004, 1025-1030E per Lord Reid.. A. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 (opinion of Lord Wright) What were the facts of the case? Which court heard the case and how had the case reached it? Facts of the case- The appellant

Case Summary: Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 1936 ac 85

2023.7.7  The Chief Justice gave judgment against both respondents, against the retailers on the contract of sale, and against the manufacturers in tort, on the basis of the decision in the House of Lords in Donoghue v Stevenson” pg. 100. Skills Required for Future Lawyers and Where to Develop Them. In the case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills

经济损失规则_百度百科

在英国的Grant v.Australian Knitting Mills(1936) 案中，原告成功地发动了针对生产者的过失侵权之诉和针对 经销商 (retailer)的违约之诉。在Dutton v. Bognot Regis Urban District Council案中，丹宁勋爵认为，在建筑承揽合同和产品买卖合同中应采取不予区分经济 ...

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills - 84 of 1934. Richard

Richard Thorold Grant Appellant v. Australian Knitting Mills, Limited, and others Respondents FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, delivered the 21ST OCTOBER, 1935. Present at the Hearing: THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

The nature of legal reasoning: a commentary with special

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 at 100. 16 16. Op. cit. p. 30. 17 17. ... Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. ...

格兰特诉澳大利亚针织厂 - Grant v Australian Knitting Mills

格兰特诉澳大利亚针织厂 - Grant v Australian Knitting Mills. 格兰特诉澳大利亚针织厂, [1] 是一个具有里程碑意义的案例 消费者 和 过失法 从1935.开始，他坚持认为如果制造商知道如果制造商不采取合理的护理措施可能会伤害到消费者，则制造商应负有义务采取合理的 ...

THE NEEDLE IN THE HAYSTACK: PRINCIPLE IN THE DUTY

2018.3.23  10 See, inter alia, Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85; Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146; Deyong v Shenburn [1946] KB 227; Farr v Butters Bros [1932] 2 KB 606. 11 Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 (“Anns”). This approach had been heralded by

Itchy underpants start Adelaide doctor's legal fight up to

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills ended with a ruling that a manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care against injury. In June 1931, Dr Grant bought two pairs of woollen underwear and two singlets from iconic Adelaide city store John Martin Co. Without any warning against it, Grant wore the underpants before they ...

Donoghue v. Stevenson and Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills

2022.3.22  The paper will basically give a summary of case law (Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936]). This is an example of judicial precedence in action. In summarizing the case law, the paper will outline the relevant facts about the case and thus shows how it developed an early case Donoghue v.

The doctor's itchy underpants and Australia's consumer

2021.2.2  Australian Knitting Mills still operates today. Current owner Rob Parker says much of the manufacturing process now happens overseas and nowadays eucalyptus is used in the washing process. And now

Grant Appellant AND Australian Knitting Mills reported case

GRANT APPELLANT; AND AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS, LIMITED, AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS. ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. ... Judgment of the High Court of Australia (Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v. Grant50 C. L. R. 387) reversed. [1936] A. 85 Page 86. APPEAL (No. 84 of 1934), by special leave, from a judgment of

Grant V Australian Knitting Mills PDF Government

2016.12.4  GRANT v AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS, LTD [1936] AC 85, PC. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The procedural history of the case: the Supreme Court of South Australia, the High Court of Australia. Judges: Viscount Hailsham L.C., Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot Sandreson. The appellant:

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd - legalmaxfo

2023.11.1  Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] A.C. 85 Privy Council Lord Wright ‘The appellant is a fully qualified medical man practising at Adelaide in South Australia.

TOWARDS GENERAL THEORY OF NEGLIGENCE AND

2023.12.19  Wright in Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd,6 and by the majority of the House of Lords in Bourhill v. Young7 deprived such doubts of their basis. ... 'Invitation' (1953) 2 University of Western Australia Annual Law Review 543, 567-569. l6The first comprehensive attempt to analyse the occupiers' law in the United

precedent case - grant v australian knitting mills Studymode

GRANT v AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS, LTD [1936] AC 85, PC. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The procedural history of the case: the Supreme Court of South Australia, the High Court of Australia. Judges: Viscount Hailsham L.C., Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot Sandreson. The appellant: Richard Thorold

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 - Student Law

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85. This case considered the issue of negligent product liability and whether or not a clothing manufacturer was responsible for the injury sustained by a consumer when first wearing their clothing. Share this case study Like this case study. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85.

The case of Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills, adjudicated in

2023.12.27  Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills reinforced the idea that consumer protection is an essential aspect of the law, emphasizing the responsibility of manufacturers to ensure the safety of their products. Conclusion. Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills (1936) remains a crucial case in understanding the evolution of tort law and consumer protection ...

Defination of Merchantable Quality - LawTeacher

2019.8.19  In the Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd (1936) AC 85 case, appellant was purchase woollen garment from the retailers. Appellant was not realized that the woollen garment was in a defective condition and cause the appellant contracted dermatitis of an external origin. This is because he has wear woollen garment which is defective

403. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85

2013.9.3  In a prolonged trial the Supreme Court of Southern Australia (Murray CJ) found both retailers and manufacturers liable. Retailers were liable under the equivalent of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 and Manufacturers were liable in tort on the authority of Donoghue v Stevenson (snail in soda pop bottle case). The Australian High Court

A Century of Torts: Western Australian Appeals to the

2021.7.6  Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd (1935) 54 CLR 49. Australian appeals were among the early cases heard by the High Court in the wake of these developments, possibly before their full impact had been appreciated. One was Buckle v Bayswater Road Board,15 which has already been referred to.

A Ramble with Res Ipsa Loquitur The Cambridge Law

2009.1.16  Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills [1936] A.C. 85, per Wright, Lord at pp. 96 –7.Google Scholar. 13 13 Bollard v. North British Ry., 1923 S.C.(H.L.) 43, at p. 53.Google Scholar. 14 14 Ibid, at p. 56. The American view is still stronger. It is ‘a source of so much confusion in the courts that the use of the phrase has become a definite ...

Liability for Goods Lecture - LawTeacher

2023.11.6  Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85. There may be a reasonable contemplation of intermediate examination by a third party or the consumer, for example, a hairdresser or consumer warned to test a hair product before use. Warning. An ‘adequate’ warning may discharge the manufacturers’ duty of care. See in:

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 2 - CaseMine

JISCBAILII_CASE_TORT Privy Council Appeal No. 84 of 1934. Richard Thorold Grant Appellant v. Australian Knitting Mills, Limited, and others Respondents FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, delivered the 21ST OCTOBER, 1935. Present at the

Res Ipsa Loquitur: The Australasian Experience The

2009.1.16  Australian Knitting Mills [1936] A.C. 85, seems to have been conditioned by Macmillan, Lord warning in Donoghue v. Stevenson [ 1932 ] A.C. 562 at p. 622 Google Scholar , against applying the maxim to cases of manufacturers' liability because of the theory that mere proof of injury from a manufactured article shifts the legal onus of proof

授予澳大利亚编织工厂1936.案例报告 - yobo123

2004.1.6  Drantv澳大利亚编织厂1936. - 彼得斯广场（Peters Place），格兰特v澳大利亚编织工厂1936 AC 65.格兰特v澳大利亚编织厂 - 维基百科。. Grant V Australian Knitting Mills是1935.从消费者和疏忽法中的具有里程碑意义的案例，认为制造商知道如果制造商不进行合理的护理，则 ...

Law School : The University of Western Australia