Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:59

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Procurement/Justification

Dear Colleagues:

I would be interested in anyone's views as to whether they thought that the reasoning in James v Commonwealth (1938 HCA) was correct. The case stands for the proposition roughly that the Lumley tort is not made out if government officials induce persons to breach contracts with 'threats/promises' that they will enforce relevant regulatory legislation that is subsequently found to be void/ultra vires on division of powers grounds. I know that there are some Canadian cases which take a similar tack but am interested in other's views.

Cheers,  

--  
Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>