| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Rayneon (New Zealand) Ltd v Fraser ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Rayneon (New Zealand) Ltd v Fraser
''Rayneon (New Zealand) Ltd v Fraser'' () 1 NZLR 825 is a case often cited in New Zealand regarding the concept of frustration of purpose.
==Background==
Fraser ran a dental practice, and in 1936 he entered into a contract with Rayneon to lease a neon sign advertising his business. The lease was for a term of 5 years, however in the government passed the Dentists Advertising Regulations (1938) making any advertisements that were did not meet the requirements of the regulation illegal. In this case, Schedule 8, which covered illuminated signs, neon signs were not listed as being allowed, thus being illegal. As a result, the dentist ceased paying the remaining lease payments, claiming the contract was now not legally enforceable due to frustration.
Rayneon's position was that only a "lit" neon sign was prohibited, and not the neon tubes and electrical wiring that they supplied the dentist. However, the Regulations also prohibited signs from having lettering greater than 2 inches, and limited the words that could be used on the sign, both of which the sign did not meet.
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「Rayneon (New Zealand) Ltd v Fraser」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.
|
|