Relate Projects

Grant V Australia Knitting Mills

Judgement for the case Grant v Australian Knitting Mills P contracted a disease due to a woollen jumper that contained excess sulphur and had been negligently manufactured Privy Council allowed a claim in negligence against the manufacturer D Lord Wright Tortious liability of the manufacturer is unaffected by contracts or who owns the thing at the time of retailing... As a leading global manufacturer of crushing equipment, milling equipment,dressing equipment,drying equipment and briquette equipment etc. we offer advanced, rational solutions for any size-reduction requirements, including quarry, aggregate, grinding production and complete plant plan.

Whatever your requirements, you 'll find the perfect service-oriented solution to match your specific needs with our help.We are here for your questions anytime 24/7, welcome your consultation.

Chat Online
  • Volcanic Rock Powder Grinding Plant

    Application Area:Building materials, chemicals, fertilizer, metallurgy, mining, refractory, ceramic, steel, thermal power, coal, etc.

    Further Details
  • Active Lime Plant

    Configuration:Lime kiln, coal mill, cooling machine, jaw crusher, vibrating feeder, etc.

    Further Details
  • Iron Ore Crushing Line In Pakistan

    Related Equipments: two PE600×900 jaw crushers, two impact crushers, two cone crushers, two sand makers and three circular vibrating screens.

    Further Details
  • Basalt Sand Making Plant in Philippines

    In accordance with the field visit of working site and technical guidance, Fote Machinery introduced 3 stages crushing process for our customer.

    Further Details
  • 700td Gold Concentration Plant in Sudan

    The 700t/d Gold Concentration Plant in Sudan is designed by Henan Fote Heavy Machinery Co., Ltd. Fote Machinery has provided the whole service including ore beneficiation test, plant design and construction drawing design, complete equipment manufacture a

    Further Details
  • Manganese Ore Beneficiation Plant

    Main Equipment:Jaw crusher, impact crusher, hammer crusher, vibrating screen, classifier, ball mill, etc.

    Further Details
  • grant v australian knitting mills limited 1935 case summary

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills is a landmark case in consumer law from 1935 holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care

    Further Details
  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Free Essay Example

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills The material facts of the case The underwear consisting of two pairs of underpants and two siglets was bought by appellant at the shop of the respondents The retailer had purchased them with other stock from the manufacturer

    Further Details
  • grant v australian knitting mills 1936 ac 85 case summary

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 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

    Further Details
  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 1936

    The Grant vs Australian Knitting Mills case from 1936 this case was a persuasive case rather than binding because the precedent was from another hierarchy The manufacturer owned a duty of care to the ultimate consumer

    Further Details
  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Wikipedia Republished

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills is a landmark case in consumer law from 1935 holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care It continues to be cited as an authority in legal cases and used as an example for students studying law

    Further Details
  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills PC 21 Oct 1935 swarb

    May 08 2019 · Grant v Australian Knitting Mills PC 21 Oct 1935 References 1935 All ER Rep 209 1936 AC 85 105 LJPC 6 154 LT 185 1935 UKPC 2 1935 UKPC 62 Links Bailii Bailii

    Further Details
  • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 1936

    The Grant vs Australian Knitting Mills case from 1936 this case was a persuasive case rather than binding because the precedent was from another hierarchy The manufacturer owned a duty of care to the ultimate consumer morevert Ratio Decendi Ratio Decendi

    Further Details
  • grant v australian knitting mills 1936 ac 85 case summary

    Grant V Australian Knitting Mills Limited 1936 AC 85 Grant v australian knitting mills limited 1936 ac to my bookmarks export article openurl check for local electronic subscriptions is part of journal title the law reports house of lords and judicial committee of

    Further Details
  • Grant V Australia Knitting Mills

    Grant v Australian knitting mills 1935 Dr Grant the plaintiff contracted a severe case of dermatitis as a result of wearing woolen underpants which had been manufactured by the defendants The garment in question was alleged to contain an excess of sulphite

    Further Details
  • Grant V Australian Knitting Mills

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Wikipedia 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 may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care

    Further Details
  • precedent case grant v australian knitting mills Essay

    Apr 13 2014 · 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 LC Lord Blanksnurgh Lord Macmillan Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot Sandreson The appellant Richard Thorold Grant

    Further Details
  • australian knitting mills v grant

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills as examples of persuasive precedent however the question was about statutory interpretation andthose cases did not involve statutory interpretation The following is an example of a highscoring response 2017 VCE Legal Studies examination report Get Price

    Further Details
  • Example of the Development of Law of negligence

    So how did Australia get the Law of Negligence Case 6 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 1936 – Itchy Undies duty extended The concepts of D v S were further expanded in Grant v AKM In this case the manufacturers failed to remove a chemical irritant from their woollen underwear Grant upon wearing the undies contracted dermatitis

    Further Details
  • Grant vs Australian Knitting Mills questions

    Aug 15 2013 · Author Topic Grant vs Australian Knitting Mills questions Read 7215 times Tweet Share 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic IvanJames Victorian Trailblazer Posts 25 Respect 0 Grant vs Australian Knitting Mills questions « on August 15 2013 050005 pm

    Further Details
  • Education Dr Grant Victoria Law Foundation

    Dr Grant and his underpants is a fully scripted model mediation for classroom use The script is based on the South Australian case Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited and Another 1935 HCA 66 1935 54 CLR 49 Details of the original case are set out in the section entitled ‘The real case and its

    Further Details
  • 1936 Grant v Australia Negligence Tort Free 30day

    Principle of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 A C 562 applied That principle can be applied only where the defect is hidden and unknown to the customer or consumer The liability in tort was independent of any question of contract Judgment of the High Court of Australia Australian Knitting Mills Ld v Grant 50 C L R 387 reversed

    Further Details
  • grant v australian knitting mills 1936 case summary

    Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Wikipedia 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 may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care

    Further Details
Hi,may I help you with products, price, etc?