翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Castlelevington ・ Castlelost (civil parish) ・ Castlelost Castle ・ Castlelyons ・ Castlelyons GAA ・ Castlemagner GAA ・ Castlemaine ・ Castlemaine (GSWR) railway station ・ Castlemaine Brewery, Western Australia ・ Castlemaine Diggings National Heritage Park ・ Castlemaine Football Club ・ Castlemaine Mail ・ Castlemaine Perkins ・ Castlemaine Perkins Building ・ Castlemaine railway station ・ Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia ・ Castlemaine XXXX ・ Castlemaine, County Kerry ・ Castlemaine, Victoria ・ Castleman ・ Castleman Run Lake Wildlife Management Area ・ Castleman Trailway ・ Castleman's disease ・ Castlemania ・ Castlemans Ferry, Virginia ・ Castlemartin ・ Castlemartin Corse ・ Castlemartin House and Estate ・ Castlemartin Hundred ・ Castlemartin Training Area Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia ： ウィキペディア英語版 Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia ''Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia'' (1990) 169 CLR 436 is a High Court of Australia case that deals with whether a particular Act of South Australia contravenes Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, which is about the freedom of interstate trade. == Background == The Beverage Container Act 1975 (SA) required a mandatory deposit of 5 cents per bottle, which would be refunded when they were returned; refillable bottles were exempt from this deposit. A later amendment, the Beverage Container Act Amendment Act 1986 (SA) subjected non-refillable bottles to a refund of 15 cents and refillable bottles to a refund of 4 cents. Further more, the refund for non-refillable bottles was to be implemented by retailers, instead of a collection depot. The Bond brewing companies brewed beer outside of South Australia, and they used non-refillable bottles as opposed to their South Australian counterparts. Although a 5-cent deposit would not have disadvantaged the Bond companies, the later Act's higher deposit and refund mechanism acted together to make their beer uncompetitive. Around the time of the amending Act, the Bond companies' advertising campaign had increased their market share at the expense of the principal South Australian brewer. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the laws were invalid as being contrary to section 92. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.