APPRENTICES’ ACT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 155, 3 July 1934, Page 6

APPRENTICES’ ACT

CASE BEFOEE FULL COURT CO L XSEL ’S AIIGUMEXT ( I’er Pres.? Association ). WELLINGTON, July 2. When the case Burton versus Pre - isiun Engineering Company was i ••uir.vd bcloit the Full Court thu : loining, counsel for the defendant company informed the Court that both counsel were agreed that the appren ticcs’ order had never been expressl; cancelled. Continuing bls argument, counsc submitted that there was no necessit.lor an award to be in existence p: which to base.au apprentices’ order Although the award had born can celled, the apprentices’ order wusstil in existence, and therefo.e the Appren ticcs’ Act. 1923, applied, and no com mon law right of action existed. If however, the Court should hold tha the Apprentices’ Act did not apply counsel submitted as an alternative argument that the whole basis an< body of the contract was destrc-yc-bv reason on the non-application oi the Act. Contract was now impos sible of performance because, althcugl it created certain rights, there wa: now no machinery’ available for th< endorcenicat of Ihos<> rights.