Plain tobacco packaging protection, and have since been publicly refuted by customs officials, and the report itself indicated that it had relied extensively on unaudited figures supplied by the tobacco industry itself. In June 2011, Imperial Tobacco Australia launched a secondary media campaign, deriding plain packaging legislation as part of a Nanny state. In June 2011, Philip Morris International announced it was using the provisions in a Hong Kong/Australia treaty to demand compensation for Australia's plain packaging anti-smoking legislation. As a US-based company, Philip Morris could not sue under the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The company rearranged its assets to become a Hong
Homeguard Products (New Zealand) Ltd v Kiwi Packaging Ltd how long "promptly" might mean. Homeguard Products (New Zealand) Ltd v Kiwi Packaging Ltd Homeguard Products (New Zealand) Ltd v Kiwi Packaging Ltd [1981] 2 NZLR 322 is often cited regarding the banking of cheques tendered as full settlement of disputed accounts. Kiwi Packaging supplied Homeguard with packaging materials. For unexplained reasons, a dispute arose between the parties just what the final balance owing was. This was not helped by Kiwi packaging giving different amounts as the final balance, ranging from $901.84 to $1,187.60. Homeguard thought the balance was even less than these amounts, with their calculation being for $765.97,