| 词条 | Hamilton v Papakura District Council |
| 释义 |
| name = Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) | court = Judicial Committee of the Privy Council | date_filed = | image = Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg | date decided = 28 February 2002 | full name = Hamilton & Anor v. Papakura District Council & Watercare Services Limited | citations = [2000] 1 NZLR 265, [2002] 3 NZLR 308, [2002] UKPC 9 | judges = Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt,Sir Kenneth Keith | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = | transcripts = Privy Council judgment | Keywords = negligence }}Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [2002] UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher.[1] BackgroundThe Hamiltons grew hydroponic cherry tomatoes, using the Papakura town water supply to supply their water needs. When they found their crop had been destroyed, they claimed that the water supply company and the local council were at fault, claiming that the water was contaminated by minute traces of herbicide in the water supply. They claimed that this was a breach of the Sale of Goods Act [1908]. References1. ^{{cite book |title=Butterworths Student Companion Torts |edition=4th |last1=McLay |first1=Geoff |publisher=LexisNexis |ISBN=0-408-71686-X|year=2003 |page=}} 5 : Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from New Zealand|New Zealand tort case law|2002 in case law|2002 in New Zealand law|Papakura District |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。