¹ “Non Liquetand the Function of Law in the International Community” (1959) 35 British Yearbook of International Law 124, 149-150.

² A recent Australian account of some aspects is Walsh, and Ryan, , “Harmonisation and Standardisation of Legal Aspects of International Trade” (1977) 51 A.L.J. 608.Google Scholar The most recent accounts of the movement for international unification of law are to be found in International Association of Legal Science, International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Vol. II, Ch. 5, “The International Unification of Private law” by Rene David, (henceforth cited as “David, (1971)”) which must be read in the light of Professor David's commitment to an idealist basis for the unification of law, but which is an outstanding historical and analytical account of the movement, by one of the world's great comparative lawyers; and a symposium in (1968) 16 American Journal of Comparative Law, especially Hay, , “The International Unification of Law—A Symposium” 1Google Scholar, and Graveson, , “The International Unification of Law” 4Google Scholar. Rodino, , “Outlines for a Bibliography on Uniform Law” (1973) 66 Law Library Journal 272Google Scholar refers to the basic works on the subject.

³ This is the aim of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, which is discussed, infra p. 295.

⁴ David, (1971), 7 ff., 210 ff.; Matteucci, , “UNIDROIT, The First Fifty Years” [1976] 1 Uniform Law Review 15, 19Google Scholar; cf. Kaiser, , “Transnational Relations as a Threat to the Democratic Process” (1971) 25 International Organization 706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ David, , (1971); also “The Methods of Unification” (1968) 16 American Journal of Comparative Law 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ This is the Volksgeist theory, first enunciated by von Savigny, whose Vom Beruf unserer Zeit fur Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft was publi$hed in 1814. For an account of Savigny's theories see Allen, Law in the Making (7th ed. 1966) 87-89; or Stone, Social Dimensions of Law and Justice (1966) Ch. 2.

⁷ Schmitthoff, “Introduction” and “The Law of International Trade, Its Growth, Formulation and Operation” in Schmitthoff (ed.), The Sources of the Law of International Trade (Goteborg, 1964).

⁸ von Mehren (ed.),Law in Japan (Cambridge, Mass., 1963).

⁹ International Legal Center, Law and Development: The Future of Law and Development Research (N.Y., 1974); Trubek and Galanter, “Scholars in Self Estrangement: Some Reflections on the Crisis in Law and Development Studies in the United States” [1974] Wisconsin Law Review 1062.

¹⁰ The following deal with aspects of the unification of law in Australia: Piesse, , “Uniformity of State Laws-A Proposal for Action” (1939) 13 A.L.J. 176Google Scholar; Shatwell, , “Some Reflections on the Problems of Law Reform” (1957) 31 A.L.J 325Google Scholar, and the comments of Sir Owen Dixon at 340-342; Sawer, , “Federal-State Co-operation in Law Reform: Lessons of the Australian Uniform Companies Act” (1963) 4 Melbourne University Law Review 238Google Scholar; Kerr, Uniformity in the LawTrends and Techniques (Garran Memorial Oration, Canberra, 1965); Leach, , “The Uniform Law Movement in Australia” (1963) 12 American Journal of Comparative Law 206CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mason, , “Law Reform in Australia” (1971) 4 F.L. Rev. 197Google Scholar; Cranston, , “Uniform Laws in Australia” (1971) XXX Public Administration (Australia) 229Google Scholar; Kirby, , “Uniform Law Reform: Will We Live to See It?” (1977) 8 Sydney Law Review 1Google Scholar; and the Annual Reports of the Australian Law Reform Commission.

¹¹ Kirby, op. cit.

¹² Similar factors were the main reason for the formation of UNCITRAL: UNCITRAL Yearbook, Vol. I (1968-1970) 1; Contini, , “The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL): First Session and Preparatory Work” (1968) 16 American Journal of Comparative Law 666CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Farnsworth, , “UNCITRAL-Why? What? How? When?” (1972) 20 American Journal of Comparative Law 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Schmitthoff, supra n. 7; also Schmitthoff, “The Unification or Harmonisation of Law by Means of Standard Contracts and General Conditions” [1967-1968] II UNIDROIT Yearbook 93; (1968) 17 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 551; Michida, “Possible Avenues to Preparation of Standard Contracts for International Trade” in Honnold (ed.), Unification of the Law Governing International Sale of Goods (Paris, 1966) 251.

¹⁴ Perhaps the most widely used standard terms are those of the Uniform Customs and Practice of Bankers for Documentary Letters of Credit (UCP), published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and, since 1962, used by virtually every commercial bank involved in international documentary credits. See, e.g. Gutteridge, and Megrah, , The Law of Bankers' Commercial Credits (London, 5th ed. 1976)Google Scholar; Ellinger, , Documentary Letters of Credit (Singapore, 1970)Google Scholar; Purvis, and Darvas, , Commercial Letters of Credit (1975)Google Scholar. The ICC is also responsible for the INCOTERMS, which are standard terms imported into contracts for international sales, where expressions such as “f.o.b.” and “c.i.f.” are used. These are discussed in Schmitthoff, , The Export Trade (London, 6th ed. 1975).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Such as grain (London Corn Trade Association) or shipping (e.g. the “Baltime” and “Gencon” forms of charterparty) . Standard terms for trade in particular commodities have been prepared by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; the Economic Commission for Asia and the Pacific provides arbitration facilities.

¹⁶ On recent international developments, Sacerdoti, , “The New Arbitration Rules of ICC and UNCITRAL” (1977) 11 Journal of World Trade Law 248CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for the law in Australia, Goldring, , “Australian Law and International Commercial Arbitration” (1976) 15 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 216.Google Scholar

¹⁷ UNCITRAL Report, “Ratification of or Adherence to Conventions Concerning International Trade Law” (1974) Doc. A/CN. 9/91 (reprinted in UNCITRAL Yearbook, Vol. V (1974) 191).

¹⁸ This was the case when the U.K. acceded to the 1964 Hague Convention on a Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods (ULIS). The Uniform Laws on International Sales Act 1967 (U.K.), s. 1 provides that, under British law, the ULIS will apply to a sale only when the parties to the sale specify that it shall. In other cases the ordinary rules as selected by the general English or Scottish conflict of laws rules will apply.

¹⁹ Such as the Universal Postal Union, the Berne Unions, which are concerned with the protection of intellectual and industrial property, the International Railway Transport Office (OCTI), and the International Maritime Committee (CMI) which are private or semi-public institutions.

²⁰ Such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the International Civil Aviation Organization (!CAO) and the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO).

²¹ E.g. air law, discussed by Sand, , “The International Unification of Air Law” (1965) 30 Law and Contemporary Problems 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² Gutteridge, , “An International Code of the Law of Sale” (1933) 14 British Yearbook of International Law 75Google Scholar; Donovan, , “The Unification of International Commercial Law-Sale and Arbitration” (1959) 2 Melbourne University Law Review 172Google Scholar; Honnold, (ed.), Unification of the Law Governing International Sales of Goods (Paris, 1966)Google Scholar; Matteucci, n. 4, 21 supra.

²³ Caemmerer, von, “The Problem of the Unification of Private Law in Europe” (1964) 36 University of Colorado Law Review 307, 309Google Scholar ff.; Kahn-Freund, , “On the Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law” (1974) 37 Modern Law Review 1, 3-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Das Recht des W arenkaufs: eine rechtsvergleichende Darstellung (Berlin, 1958-1964) 2 vols.

²⁵ Matteucci, n. 4, 27-29 supra.

²⁶ Sutton, , “The Draft Convention on the International Sale of Goods” (1976) 4 Australian Business Law Review 269Google Scholar; (1977) 5 Australian Business Law Review 28; 92.

²⁷ See Rogerson, , “The Law Applicable to Agency” Fourth International Trade Law Seminar 81 (Attorney-General's Department, Canberra, 1977).Google Scholar

²⁸ UNCTAD Report, U.N. Doc. TD/B/C.4/ISL/6; UNCITRAL Report, U.N.Doc. A/CN.9/63/ Add. 1. See also Sweeney, , “The UNCITRAL Draft Convention” (1975-1976) 7 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 69, 327, 487, 615;Google Scholar McGilchrist, , “The New Hague Rules” [1974] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 255Google Scholar; O'Hare, , “The Hague Rules Revised: Operational Aspects” (1976) 10 Melbourne University Law Review 527Google Scholar; O'Keefe, , “The Contract of Carriage of Goods by Sea-International Regulation” (1977) 8 Sydney Law Review 68.Google Scholar

²⁹ The U.K. has legislated to give effect to the protocol (Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971). Early in 1978 a Diplomatic Conference at Hamburg approved the text of a Convention to replace the Hague Rules, which had been prepared by UNCITRAL.

³⁰ Sand, n. 21supra; Drion, , “Towards a Uniform Interpretation of the Private Air Law Conventions” (1952) 19 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 423Google Scholar; Reports by ICAO to the Conferences of Organisations Concerned with the Unification of Law, UNIDROIT Yearbooks 1956, 1959 and subsequently.

³¹ Nadelmann, , “Ways to Unify Conflicts Rules” (1962) 9 Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Internationaal Recht (Special Issue) 349Google Scholar; Nadelmann, , “The United States Joins the Hague Conference on Private International Law” (1965) 30 Law and Contemporary Problems 291.Google Scholar

³² In addition to the volumes published by the Attorney-General's Department, Canberra, for the years 1973-1976, the proceedings have been noted; (1974) 48 A.L.J. 155, 269; (1975) 49 A.L.J. 290; (1977) 51 A.L.J. 327.

³³ Hazard, , “Unity and Diversity in Socialist Law” (1965) 30 Law and Contemporary Problems 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ Yntema, , “Unification of Law in the United States” [1948] UNIDROIT Year book 301Google Scholar; Harno, , “Uniform Laws and the Federal System” (1948) 2 Oklahoma Law Review 38Google Scholar; Rossman, , “Uniformity of Law-An Elusive Goal” (1950) 36 American Bar Association Journal 175, 177Google Scholar; Dunham, , “A History of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws” (1965) 30 Law and Contemporary Problems 233CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barrett, , “The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws; Its Creation, Organization and Operation” [1956] II UNIDROIT Yearbook 321Google Scholar; as well as the Annual Publications of the Conference.

³⁵ Palmer, , “Federalism and Uniformity of Laws: The Canadian Experience” (1965) 30 Law and Contemporary Problems 250CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ryan, , “The Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada” [1970] UNIDROIT Yearbook 127Google Scholar; Annual Proceedings of the Conference (since 1974 called the “Canadian Uniform Law Conference”).

³⁶ Aeby, , “Switzerland and the Unification of Law” [1948] UNIDROIT Yearbook 341.Google Scholar

³⁷ Blagojevic, , “Unification of Law, Especially of Private Law, in Yugoslavia” [1957] UNIDROIT Yearbook 195.Google Scholar

³⁸ Rao, Rama, “Codification and Unification of Indian Law” [1962] UNIDROIT Yearbook 111.Google Scholar

³⁹ Gutteridge, , “The Technique of the Unification of Private Law” (1939) 20 British Yearbook of International Law 37 (Gutteridge, (1939)).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ UNCITRAL Report, supra n. 17; Graveson, , “The International Unification of Law” (1968) 16 American Journal of Comparative Law 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ Gutteridge, , Comparative Law (2nd ed., Cambridge, 1949) 158Google Scholar; David, (1971) 24-33.

⁴² David, (1971) 35-45.

⁴³ Netti, , “The Treaty Enforcement Power in Federal Constitutions” (1950) 28 Canadian Bar Review 1051, 1057Google Scholar; Sawer, , “The Execution of Treaties by Legislation in the Commonwealth of Australia” (1956) 2 University of Queensland Law Journal 297, 298.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ (1956) 56 S.R. (N.S.W.) 254.

⁴⁵ Australian Federal Constitutional Law (2nd ed. 1972) 224-225.

⁴⁶ (1936) 55 C.L.R. 608.

⁴⁷ (No.1) (1964) 113 C.L.R. 1; (No.2) (1965) 113 C.L.R. 54.

⁴⁸ New South Wales v. Commonwealth (1975)8 A.L.R. 1.

⁴⁹ R. v. Judges of Australian Industrial Court; ex parte C.L.M. Holdings Pty Ltd (1977) 13 A.L.R. 273.

⁵⁰ The United States was an original party to the 1923 Convention; the Senate refused to repeal the Harter Act for thirteen years, but the Hague Rules were finally enacted in 1936.

⁵¹ Nadelmann, and Reese, , “The American Proposal at the Hague Conference on Private International Law” (1958) 7 American Journal of Comparative Law 239CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Criticised by Graveson, supra n. 40.

⁵² E.g. Matteucci, , “The Unification of Commercial Law” [1960] Journal of Business Law 137Google Scholar; David, , “L'unification ou !'harmonisation legislative sans engagement international” [1967-1968] II UNIDROIT Yearbook 77Google Scholar; David, , “The Methods of Unification” (1968) 16 American Journal of Comparative Law 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵³ In effect, this is the position with the ULIS in the United Kingdom where, under the Uniform Laws on International Sales Act 1967, the rules of the ULIS will not apply unless the parties so specify. S. 6 of the Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1924 (Cth) provides that every bill of lading must contain a statement that it is to have effect subject to the provisions of the Hague Rules which are a Schedule to that Act.

⁵⁴ Schmitthoff, , “The Unification or Harmonisation of Law by Means of Standard Contracts and General Conditions” [1967-1968] II UNIDROIT Yearbook 93Google Scholar; (1968) 17 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 551.

⁵⁵ Donovan, supra n. 22; Goldring, , “The 1958 U.N. Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the Australian Constitution” (1973) 5 F.L. Rev. 303.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Clarke, , “Unequal Bargaining Power in the Law of Contract” (1975) 49 A.L.J. 229Google Scholar; Peden, , Harsh and Unconscionable Contracts (Report to the N.S.W. Minister for Consumer Affairs and Co-operative Societies and the Attorney-General, 1976).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Gutteridge, (1939).

⁵⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁹ Dunham, Barrett, supra n. 34.

⁶⁰ Gutteridge, (1939) 39.

⁶¹ Matteucci, , “The Methods of the Unification of Law” [1956] II UNIDROIT Yearbook 3, 41.Google Scholar

⁶² Kahn-Freund, n. 23, 7-17, 20 supra.

⁶³ Gutteridge supra n. 41.

⁶⁴ By publication of a regular news bulletin, the Uniform Law Review, and the UNIDROIT Digest of Activities Concerned with Unification of Law. It also sponsors Conferences of Organisations Concerned with Unification of Law, and its Secretariat maintains informal contact.

⁶⁵ The methods of these two organisations are similar. The comparative study is generally published; at the same time it is the basis of work of drafting by a Committee of Experts or “Working Group”, who present a final draft for diplomatic negotiation.

⁶⁶ Council of Europe, Committee of Experts on the Liability of Producers, Products Liability (Strasbourg, 1972); Association Europeenne d'Etudes Juridiques et Fiscales, Product Liability in Europe (London, 1975); Lorenz, , “Some Comparative Aspects of the European Unification of the Law of Products Liability” (1975) 60 Cornell Law Review 1005Google Scholar; Fleming, , “Draft Convention on Products Liability (Council of Europe)” (1975) 23 American Journal of Comparative Law 729CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wassermann, , “Council of Europe, Products Liability Convention” (1977) 11 Journal of World Trade Law 192Google Scholar; Note, [1977] Journal of Business Law 50; Goldring, , “Liability of Manufacturers for Defective Goods: Some European Trends” (1977) 51 Law Institute Journal 240.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ If a Directive is approved unanimously by the Council of Ministers of the EEC, it becomes binding in the sense that each member is required to make such changes as may be necessary to bring its own law into accordance with the Directive.

⁶⁸ Lloyds', of London Press, Product Liability and Insurance (1977)Google Scholar, especially the paper by Hussey.

⁶⁹ Mann, , “The Interpretation of Uniform Statutes” (1946) 62 L.Q.R. 278Google Scholar; Malintoppi, , “Mesures tendant a prevenir les divergences dans I'interpretation des regles de droit uniforme” [1959] UNIDROIT Yearbook 249, 250.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ At p. 314 infra.

⁷¹ Ziegel, , “Uniformity of Law in Canada: The Conditional Sales Experience” (1961) 39 Canadian Bar Review 165.Google Scholar

⁷² Malintoppi, op. cit., 258.

⁷³ [1938] P. 41, 61, quoted by Mann, op. cit. 278.

⁷⁴ See, on the judicial unification of law, Lawson, , “Uniformity of Laws: A Suggestion” (1944) 26 Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 16, 18Google Scholar; Graveson, n. 40, 7 supra; Graveson, , “The Judicial Unification of Private International Law” (1962) 9 Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor lnternationaal Recht, (Special Issue) De Conflictu Legem 154Google Scholar; Joske, , “Uniformity of Empire Law” (1951) 5 Res Judicatae 8Google Scholar; Nadelmann, , “Bench and Bar: Unification of Private Law” (1955) 29 Tulane Law Review 328, 334Google Scholar; Mann, supra n. 69; Mason, supra n. 10.

⁷⁵ Gosse Millerd Ltd v.Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd [1929] A.C. 223; Ellerman Lines Ltd v.Murray [1931] A.C. 126.

⁷⁶ [1932] A.C. 328.

⁷⁷ Id. 342-343.

⁷⁸ Id.350.

⁷⁹ See generally Lawson, , supra n. 74.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Graveson, n. 2, 12 supra; David, (1971) 112; Malintoppi, n. 69, 258 supra.

⁸¹ In Australia, the Constitution confers the “judicial power” of the Commonwealth exclusively upon the courts created under the Constitution. Such power may not be conferred on any other body: R. v. Davison (1954) 90 C.L.R. 353.

⁸² Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141; Castles, , “The Reception and Status of English Law in Australia” (1963) 2 Adelaide Law Review 1.Google Scholar

⁸³ Lawson, supra n. 74.

⁸⁴ Ibid.; Joske, supra n. 74;cf. Graveson, supra n. 2.

⁸⁵ Rossman, , supra n. 34.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Supra n. 74.

⁸⁷ Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 (Cth); Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 (Cth).

⁸⁸ Favelle Mort Ltd v. Murray (1976) 8 A.L.R. 649, 658 per Barwick C.J.; but see now Viro v. R.(1978) 18 A.L.R. 257 and Attorney-General of the Commonwealth v. T. & G. Mutual Life Society Ltd (1978) 19 A.L.R. 385.

⁸⁹ The most convenient summary is perhaps Crommelin and Evans, , “Explorations and Adventures with Commonwealth Powers” in Evans (ed.) Labor and the Constitution 1972-1975 (1977) 24.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Joske, , “Uniform Divorce Laws” (1957) 7 Res Judicatae 363Google Scholar; also Barwick, , “Some Aspects of the New Matrimonial Causes Act” (1961) 3 Sydney Law Review 409Google Scholar; Crommelin and Evans, op. cit. 51-52.

⁹¹ 8 C.L.R. 330.

⁹² Lane, , “Corporations and Trade Practices: The Concrete Pipes Case” (1971) 45 A.L.J. 616Google Scholar; Lane, , “Can there Be A Commonwealth Companies Act?” (1972) 46 A.L.J. 407.Google Scholar

⁹³ Since Strickland v. Rocla Concrete Pipes Pty Ltd (1971) 124 C.L.R. 468 and the C.L.M. Case, supra n. 49; Taylor, , “The Corporations Power: Theory and Practice” (1972) 46 A.L.J. 5Google Scholar; Frankel, and Taylor, , “A 1973 National Companies Act?-The Challenge to Parochialism” (1973) 47 A.L.J. 119.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Sawer, Leach, Cranston, supra n. 10.

⁹⁵ For an account of the extent to which constitutional powers have been, and may be, tested, see Evans, “The Most Dangerous Branch? The High Court and The Constitution in a Changing Society” in Hambly and Goldring (eds), Australian Lawyers and Social Change (1976) 13; Crommelin and Evans, supra n. 89.

⁹⁶ New South Wales v. Commonwealth (1975) 8 A.L.R. 1; but note the remarks of Gibbs J. in the C.L.M. Case (1977) 13 A.L.R. 273, 275.

⁹⁷ A suggestion made by the author in 1973:5 F.L. Rev. 303.

⁹⁸ Pedersen v. Young (1964) 110 C.L.R. 162, 170 per Windeyer J.

⁹⁹ Piesse, , “Uniformity of State Laws-A Proposal for Action” (1939) 13 A.L.J. 176.Google Scholar

¹ Beasley, and Baker, , “The Need for Co-operation in State and Commonwealth Laws” (1949) 23 A.L.J. 188Google Scholar; cf. Comans, , “Co-operation between Legislatures in a Federation: The Australian Experience” (1953) 31 Canadian Bar Review 814Google Scholar; Sawer, , “Federal-State Co-operation in Law Reform: Lessons of the Australian Uniform Companies Act” (1963) 4 Melbourne University Law Review 238.Google Scholar

² Anderson, , “Reference of Powers by the States to the Commonwealth” (1951) 2 University of Western Australia Law Review 1.Google Scholar

³ Cranston, , “Uniform Laws in Australia” (1971) XXX Public Administration (Australia) 229, 233.Google Scholar

⁴ Sawer, op. cit.; Parsons, , “Uniform Company Law in Australia” [1962] Journal of Business Law 235Google Scholar; O'Connell, , “The Australian Uniform Companies Law” [1964] UNIDROIT Yearbook 191.Google Scholar

⁵ Sawer, op. cit.

⁶ Supra n. 71.

⁷ Australian Securities Markets and Their Regulation (1974) Part 1, Vol. 2 Chs 15 and 16.

⁸ Text at nn. 92, 93.

⁹ Bowen, N. H, “The Work of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General” (1971) 45 A.L.J. 489Google Scholar sets out the history, and describes the activities of the Committee. Most of the information set out here is drawn from that article; other information is drawn from Sawer, “Who Controls the Law in Australia? The Instigators of Change, and the Obstacles Confronting Them” in Hambly and Goldring, supra n.95, 118; Cranston, op. cit.; Leach, , “The Uniform Law Movement in Australia” (1963) 12 American Journal of Comparative Law 206CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and through personal communication with Professor Sawer and Dr Cranston.

¹⁰ Bowen, op. cit. 491.

¹¹ Ibid.; Gutteridge, Comparative Law (2nd ed., Cambridge, 1949) 157.Google Scholar

¹² Dunham, supra n. 34; Matteucci, , “The Methods of the Unification of Law” [1957] II UNIDROIT Yearbook 3, 18Google Scholar. The criteria set out by the Commissioners in the 1953 Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 350 are:

1. There should be a plainly obvious reason and demand for a uniform act on the subject.

2. There should be such an existing demand for the act as to make its preparation a practical step towards uniformity of state laws. It should be practically certain that the act when prepared will be accepted by a substantial number of the state legislatures and enacted into law.

3. It should deal with a subject as to which the lack of uniformity will mislead, prejudice, inconvenience, or otherwise adversely affect the citizens of the states in their activities or dealings in other states or with citizens of other states.

4. As a rule the conference should avoid entirely novel subjects with regard to which neither legislative nor administrative experience is available.

5. It should not relate to subjects that are controversial, for reasons of political policy, or involve controverted trade or professional standards.

6. It should aim to remove objectional [sic] conflicts in the existing law of the states affecting the relations between the states or between residents of different states.” (As quoted by Matteucci); cf. King, commenting on Bowen, op. cit. 496.

¹³ Report of the Trade Practices Act Review Committee, 1976, paras 9.120-9.127, 9.56-9.62.

¹⁴ (1977) 13 A.L.R. 273.

¹⁵ Adelaide Law School Committee (Rogerson, Trebilcock and Detmold), Report to the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General on the Law Relating to Consumer Credit and Moneylending (1969); also Rogerson, , “The Legal Regulation of Instalment Credit” (1971) 4 Adelaide Law Review 1.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Law Council of Australia, Trade Law Committee, Report to the AttorneyGeneral of Victoria on Fair Consumer Credit Laws (1972); McGarvie, and Begg, , “The Implementation of Fair Consumer Credit Laws” (1971) 45 A.L.J. 708.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Consumer Transactions Act 1972-1973 (S.A.); Consumer Credit Act 1972-1973(S.A.).

¹⁸ Bowen, n. 9, 492 supra.

¹⁹ Kirby, , “Uniform Law Reform: Will We Live to See It?” (1977) 8 Sydney Law Review 1Google Scholar; Australian Law Reform Commission, 1976 Annual Report paras 1-13.

²⁰ See Criteria of National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws op. cit.

²¹ Gutteridge, (1939); Matteucci, , “UNIDROIT, The First Fifty Years” [1976] 1 Uniform Law Review 15, 19.Google Scholar

²² (1957) 31 A.L.J. 325.

²³ Id. 342.

²⁴ Three of them are in Victoria, They range from the Australian and N.S.W. Law Reform Commissions, comprised of full-time expert Commissioners,backed by ample research staff and facilities, to the largely part-time bodies in the smaller States, which can afford fewer resources. There is considerable duplication of effort; Kirby, op. cit. 3; Australian Law Reform Commission, 1976 Annual Report paras 5 , 53-62.

²⁵ Kirby, loc. cit.

²⁶ Piesse, n. 99, 178 supra.

²⁷ “The Pathway to Uniform Law Reform; Co-operation and Co-ordination Within the Commonwealth”, discussed in Australian Law Reform Commission, Third Australian Law Reform Agencies Conference Papers (1976) 62.

²⁸ Australian Law Reform Commission, 1976 Annual Report, para. 12.

²⁹ Sawer, n. 1, 252 supra p. 313; Kerr, Uniformity in the Law-Trends and Techniques (Garran Memorial Oration, Canberra, 1965); Mason, , “Law Reform in Australia” (1971) 4 F.L. Rev. 197.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ellicott, “Law Reform and the Role of the States”-An Address to the Tasmanian Young Liberal Convention, Launceston, 13 June 1976;cf.the remarks of Bowen, then Attorney-General in a Government formed by the same political parties, n. 9 supra p. 315.

³¹ Bowen, n. 9 supra p. 315.

³² Sawer, n. 9, 131 supra p. 315.

³³ Mason, supra n. 29. The position has changed little in the intervening six years.

³⁴ Kirby, n. 19, 2 supra p. 318.

³⁵ E.g. Bray, (1971) 45 A.L.J. 585-586.

³⁶ The action of the South Australian Government in introducing consumer credit legislation in 1972 (text at nn. 15-17 supra p. 317) is an outstanding example of this.

³⁷ The powers of State Governments to bind their successors are extremely limited; Trethowan v. Attorney-General (N.S.W.) (1931) 44 C.L.R. 394, on appeal (1932) 47 C.L.R. 97; Clayton v. Heffron [1961] S.R. (N.S.W.) 768; South Eastern Drainage Board of South Australia v.State Savings Bank of South Australia (1939) 62 C.L.R. 603.

³⁸ Sawer, n. 9, 131 supra p. 315.

³⁹ N.99, 178 supra.

⁴⁰ Ellicott, n. 30 supra p. 320. While Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott expressed the view that the need for a national law on defamation was so strong that his Government would use its control of the Commonwealth Parliament to enact such a law; see also Kirby, , “'The Purest Treasure?' National Defamation Law Reform in Australia” (1977) 8 F.L. Rev. 113.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Part V.

⁴² White, Fair Dealing with Consumers (Report to the Attorney-General of South Australia, 1976), Recommendation 2.1; Report of the Trade Practices Act Review Committee, 1976 paras 9.1-9.37.

⁴³ Commonwealth Constitution, ss. 51(xiv), (xvii);The Attorney-General referred to the Commission questions of insurance (excluding workers' compensation and compulsory third party insurance) in September 1976, and questions of the insolvency of consumers in May 1976.

⁴⁴ N. 1, supra p. 313. Cf. O'Connell, n.4 supra p. 314.

⁴⁵ N.39 supra p. 297.

⁴⁶ Nicholson, , “Lawyers and Law Reform” (1976) 1 Legal Service Bulletin 333Google Scholar; these views were amplified in personal communication to the author, April 1976. On May 12, 1976, the President of the Law Council, Mr D. A. K. Ferguson, in a Press Release called for Uniformity of State Laws “wherever possible and wherever appropriate”. The press statement was made in the context of comments on the failure of governments to implement proposals for law reform.

⁴⁷ N.39 supra p. 297.

⁴⁸ N. 23 supra p. 319.