翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Strickland ・ Strickland (community), Wisconsin ・ Strickland (surname) ・ Strickland Brooch ・ Strickland Brothers Lepea ・ Strickland Gibson ・ Strickland Gillilan ・ Strickland House ・ Strickland House, Vaucluse ・ Strickland Kneass ・ Strickland Nunatak ・ Strickland rainbowfish ・ Strickland River ・ Strickland Road Historic District ・ Strickland Stakes ・ Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd ・ Strickland v. Sony ・ Strickland v. Washington ・ Strickland's Frozen Custard ・ Strickland's woodpecker ・ Strickland, Wisconsin ・ Strickland-Constable baronets ・ Strickland-Herold House ・ Strickland-Roberts Homestead ・ Stricklandiana ・ Strickler ・ Strickler Family Farmhouse ・ Strickler Site ・ Strickler, Arkansas ・ Strickley-Louderback House 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 Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd ： ウィキペディア英語版 Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd ''Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd'' (1971) 124 CLR 468, also known as the ''Concrete Pipes Case'', is a High Court of Australia case that discusses the scope of the corporations power in section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. This was an important case in Australian constitutional law because it overruled the decision in the earlier case of ''Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead'' (1909) 8 CLR 330, which held that the corporations power only extended as far as the regulation of their conduct in relation to their transactions with or affecting the public. Since this case, the Commonwealth has had at least the ability to regulate the trading activities of trading corporations, thus opening the way for an expansion in Commonwealth power. The width of this power was later considered again in the cases of ''Actors and Announcers Equity Association v Fontana Films'' (1982) 150 CLR 169, ''Commonwealth v Tasmania (the Tasmanian Dam Case)'' (1983) 158 CLR 1, ''Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner'' (1995) 183 CLR 323 and ''New South Wales v Commonwealth (the WorkChoices Case)'' (2006) 229 CLR 1. == Background == Section 43 of the ''Trade Practices Act'' 1965-1969 (Cth) made certain agreements between competitors restricting competition "examinable", and the respondents in this case were charged with breaching that section. The agreements in question were exclusively related to trade in Queensland. Because this is purely intrastate trade, the respondents would not have fallen within the legislative power granted by section 51(i) of the Constitution. The Commonwealth Industrial Court, at first instance, rejected the charge, following ''Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead'', in which it was held that a law with respect to the trading activities of constitutional corporations was not within power. 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「Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd」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.