No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2025
1 de Tocqueville, Democracy in America translated by Bradley, (New York 1945), i, 318-319 (first published Paris, 1835).
2 Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v. New South Wales (1954) 93 C.L.R. 1 (P.C.).
3 (1978) A.T.P.R. 17563.
4 Re Continental Can Company Incorporated [1972] C.M.L.R. D11.
5 Santow, and Gonski, , “Mergers After the Trade Practices Act 1974-1977” (1978) 52 A.L.J. 132.Google Scholar
6 [1978] A.T.P.R. 17705.
7 Commercial Law Note, (1978) 52 A.L.J. 458 suggests one possible definition.
8 The authors give currency to the widely-held but erroneous belief that these provisions were introduced in response to a boycott of Dunlop products announced by Mr R. J. A. Hawke (on 17 February 1971) on behalf of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Melbourne retail store of which it was part-owner. In fact, early in February 1971 the Attorney-General had announced the forthcoming introduction of legislation prohibiting R.P.M. This followed the completion of a study of this subject, among others, which he had commissioned in August 1970. The credit for the R.P.M. provisions thus belongs to Mr T. E. F. Hughes, Q.C., who was Federal Attorney-General at the time.